MUHAMMAD KHALID Versus THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Section 381-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged theft of a motorcycle. The petitioner was apprehended while riding as a pillion passenger on a motorcycle that was later identified as stolen property. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the mere presence of an individual as a passenger on a stolen vehicle, without additional evidence of knowledge or complicity, constitutes sufficient grounds to deny bail. The Court held that the allegation of sitting on the back seat of a motorcycle is insufficient, by itself, to establish guilt or criminal intent without further evidence connecting the accused to the commission of the crime. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry. Finding the petitioner to be a first-time offender with no prior criminal record, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the accused to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that mere presence on stolen property does not automatically establish criminal liability.
- Is the mere presence of an individual as a pillion passenger on a stolen motorcycle sufficient to establish criminal liability under Section 381-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the lack of evidence regarding an accused's knowledge of a vehicle being stolen entitle them to bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Submits that the petitioner is involved as accused person in case F.I.R. No.84 of 1997 registered with Police Station City Dera Ghazi Khan on 8-3-1999 under section 381-A, P.P.C. According to the allegation during checking two persons were seen coming on motorcycle which was intercepted by the police and the motorcycle was found to be stolen property of case F.I.R. No.84 of 1997. The petitioner is stated to be riding at the back seat. It is argued that there is no presumption that a man who was sitting on the back seat of the motorcycle driven by some one else had the knowledge that motorcycle was stolen, therefore, in absence of any further evidence on the point the petitioner cannot be hauled up as culprit.
2. Without making any comments on the submissions the allegation that he was sitting at the back seat of the motorcycle itself is not sufficient to prove him guilty unless there is some other evidence connecting with commission of the crime. The case, therefore, becomes that of further inquiry. The petitioner is stated to be previously non convict nor he is required in any criminal case. He is a young boy working as an Assistant in the workshop.
3. This petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-2409/L Bail granted.