GHULAM HAIDER and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Ghulam Haider and Khalid Ahmad, who were accused in F.I.R. No. 313 of 2002 registered under sections 457, 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners trespassed into the complainant's house and stole cash, gold ornaments, and other personal items. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given that the stolen property was not recovered from them and they had allegedly paid compensation to the complainant. The Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry as contemplated by the law, noting the lack of recovery of stolen items and the petitioners' status as previous non-convicts. Consequently, the Court granted the bail petition. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests on suspicion and there is an absence of recovery of stolen property, the matter warrants further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the absence of recovery of stolen property from the accused entitle them to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Can an accused be admitted to bail when the prosecution case is based primarily on suspicion?
- Is the payment of compensation by the accused to the complainant a relevant factor in determining entitlement to bail?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Ghulam Haider and Khalid Ahmad petitioners through the instant petition seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,313, dated 28-9-2002, registered under sections 457, 380, 411, P.P.C. With Police Station Saddar, Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on the night between 27/28-9-2002 some persons had trespassed into the complainant's house and they after breaking open the lock of the box-had stolen away his Rs,4,000, golden ornaments, unstitched clothes, ladies' wrist watch, utensils and National Identity Card of the complainant and his father. He laid suspicion against Muhammad Ismail, Muhammad Bilal, Ghulam Haider and Khalil Ahmad. He went to them who denied to have stolen away his articles.
3. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in' on the basis of suspicion; that the alleged stolen articles were not recovered from them, therefore, it is yet to be seen that if they can be liable for the alleged offence; that they were allowed bail and the same was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide order dated 25-2-2003; that since then they are behind the bars, and that they are previous non-convicts
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the petition.
5. I have considered the submissions made by, both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The complainant had laid suspicion against them in the F.I.R. That they have trespassed into his house and had stolen away his aforementioned articles and cash amount. The same have not been recovered from them and instead they allegedly had paid the amount of Rs,36,000 to him as the price or compensation of these articles etc. The A question that if in these circumstances of the case they can be held liable for the alleged offence needs consideration. Hence, their case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Calling for further inquiry into their guilt. They are stated to be behind the bars and previous non-convicts. In these circumstances, I accept the petition and admit them to bail in the sum of R5.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.