SAJJID vs THE STATE
This order disposes of two post-arrest bail petitions arising out of F.I.R. No. 50 of 2000, registered under Sections 457, 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning a shop theft involving watches and other items. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail considering the offenses charged and whether the rule of consistency applied due to the prior granting of bail to a co-accused. The High Court granted post-arrest bail to both petitioners. The court held that since the petitioners were not nominated in the F.I.R. and were implicated solely based on subsequent recoveries, the case against them at most fell under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, applying the rule of consistency, the petitioners were entitled to the same treatment as a co-accused who had been granted bail despite a larger recovery.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency when a co-accused with a similar or greater role has already been granted bail?
- Does an offense under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,50 of 2000 dated 6-2-2000 under sections 457/380/411,P . P.O. registered at Police Station Multan Cantt. Multan.
2. Alongwith this petition, Criminal Miscellaneous No,1492-B of 2000 has been tiled by Abdul Hameed. Since both the petitions arise out of the same F.1.R., so these are being disposed of by the single order.
3. Briefly stated the allegation against the present petitioners is that they had committed theft in the shop of complainant and had deprived him of watches, calculators, sunglasses and other articles lying in his shop.
4. The petitioner applied for bail which relief has been declined to them by the Courts below. Hence the instance petitions.
5. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 20 watches of Zeenat mate are stated to have been recovered from Sajjad petitioner whereas 94 watches have been recovered from Abdul Hameed petitioner, that Ghulam Jaffar, a co-accused of the present petitioners 'has been released on bail who had led to the recovery of 210 watches, vide order dated 10-5-2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, that case of the petitioners is on better footing than that of Ghulam Jaffar. as such they are entitled to the same relief, relying upon the principle of consistency.
6. Conversely, petitions have been opposed by the learned counsel for the State.
7. It is evident from the contents of F.LR. that none of the present petitioners is a nominated accused in the said F.I.R. They were arrested on 8-5-2000 and are said to have r led to the recovery of watches as mentioned above. Thus at the most case against the petitioners falls under section 411, P.P.C. which does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The co-accused. Ghulam Jaffar who led to the recovery of 210 watches has already been extended the relief of bail. Even on this score the petitioners are entitled to the same treatment as meted out to their co-accused.
8. In the light of facts stated above, the petitions are accepted and they are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in B the sum of Rs,50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.