HADAYATULLAH vs ABDUL HAMEED AND ANOTHER
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the cancellation of pre-arrest bail by the Peshawar High Court in a case involving allegations of theft. The petitioner was accused of stealing an iron bar fixed in a lane by the Municipal Corporation, Peshawar, under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 9 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail pending trial given the evidentiary circumstances. The Supreme Court observed that there was a delay in lodging the First Information Report and noted that the sole eyewitness claimed to have removed the iron bar at the petitioner's instance, creating ambiguity regarding the petitioner's direct criminal responsibility. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's guilt required further inquiry at the trial stage. The Court set aside the order of the High Court, converted the petition into an appeal, and confirmed the bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case rests on evidence requiring further investigation, the accused is entitled to remain on bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case requires further inquiry to establish criminal responsibility?
- Does a delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for confirming bail?
- Can bail be confirmed when the evidence against the accused is ambiguous regarding their direct involvement in the alleged offence?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 9, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' ZAFFAR. HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-A report was lodged against the petitioner by Abdul Hameed on 1-10- 1980 at Police Station Dabgari, Peshawar, under section 379, P.P.C./section 9 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for having allegedly stolen an Iron Bar fixed in a lane by the Municipal Corporation, Peshawar. The petitioner was admitted to bail before his arrest which was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar vide his order dated 4- 11-1980 on the ground that it was a case for further inquiry "as to wrether the accused had actually removed the bar or it has been removed by some other persons". On complainant's application, however, the learned Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, by his order dated 9-9- 1981 the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled.
2. In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner moved this Court for leave to appeal and, on 14-4- 1981 this Court granted him interim bail. It was ordered that the main petition be laid before the Court for disposal. Today we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General on behalf of the State. It is concede before us by the learned Assistant Advocate-General that there is som delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. And the only eye- witness in support of the main charge is Lalai who seems to have stated that he had removed the iron bar in question at the instance of the petitioner. In these circumstances it seems to us that the guilt of the petitioner require to be furthe inquiry at the trial to fix the criminal responsibility on him.
He is, there fore, entitled to remain on bail.
3. We, therefore, convert this petition into appeal and confirmed the bail in the terms already granted to him by this Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Irfan Versus State Fayyaz Ahmed Mehr 2026 YLR 2196
- Pir GHULAM SIDIK JAN vs Pir MUHAMMAD SAEED JAN and anothers 1985 P Cr. L J 931