MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused in a case registered under Sections 458, 380, 411, 171, and 170 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the accused, disguised in police uniforms, entered the complainant's house, tied up the occupants, and attempted to abduct a family member while stealing property. One co-accused was apprehended at the scene and implicated the petitioners. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the evidence available at the pre-trial stage. The court observed that the prosecution could not produce any incriminating evidence against the petitioners other than the recovery of a nominal sum of Rs. 100 from each, which was insufficient to prima facie connect them to the commission of the crime. Consequently, the court held that the case against the petitioners required further inquiry. The court granted bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution fails to provide sufficient incriminating evidence to connect an accused to the alleged offense at the bail stage, the case warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to relief.
- Does the recovery of a nominal sum of money from an accused, without further evidence, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- When does a criminal case warrant further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 171, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 170, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,261 of 2001 dated 30-10-2001 under sections 458, 380, 411, 171 and 170,' P.P.C, registered at Police Station Malka Hans, District Pakpattan.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on the night of 29-10-2001, complainant's brother, his wife and mother were sleeping in their house. At about 1-30 a.m. Five persons entered into their house who were armed with deadly weapons and had muffled theit faces, one of them was in police uniform.
Mst. Bashiran complainant's mother woke up and accused persons asked that Allah Dina, her son is an accused person and they have come to arrest him. Complainant's mother was tied up by the accused person with her Dopatta. Allah Ditta brother of complainant when came out, he was searched out by the accused persons and Rs,500 was recovered from him. Thereafter, a T.V and Taper Recorder was taken away by the accused persons. Allah Ditta was asked to,accompany the accused. He refused to accompany them and he started hue and cry whereupon witnesses were attracted to the spot. The accused persons ran away. However, Abbas co-accused was apprehended by the witnesses. T.V and Taper Recorder was left behind. Co-accused Abbas told that his other co-accused are the present petitioners and one Mansha and Noshi. Consequently the instant F.I.R. Was recorded.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that except recovery of Rs,100 each from the petitioners there is no incriminating evidence available with the prosecution sat present.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel has opposed this application.
5. At the same time learned State counsel is not in a position to show any other evidence against the petitioners except the above referred recovery of Rs,100 each from the petitioners that too prima facie at present does not connect the' petitioners with the commission of crime at this stage.
In the circumstances, the case of the petitioners requires further inquiry. Accordingly they are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.