MUHAMMAD TANVEER ALI vs THE STATE
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 173 of 2000 registered at Airport Police Station for offences under sections 454 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was seen taking away a bag containing traveler cheques from the complainant's office and that stolen property was subsequently recovered from him and co-accused persons. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of consistency with co-accused who had already been granted bail, and considering the circumstances of recovery and lack of absconsion risk. The Sindh High Court held that although the applicant's case was initially distinguishable from co-accused due to direct sighting in the F.I.R., bail should be granted because the material witness named in the F.I.R. was omitted from the charge-sheet, the stolen property had already been recovered, and the applicant was a Government servant with no probability of absconding. The court laid down the principle that post-arrest bail may be granted when recovery of stolen property is complete, a key witness is omitted from the charge-sheet, and the accused poses no flight risk due to stable employment.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the stolen property has already been recovered and there is no probability of absconsion?
- Does the omission of a material witness from the charge-sheet constitute a ground for granting bail?
- Can bail be claimed on the ground of consistency with co-accused when the factual allegations against the applicant are distinguishable?
- Section 454, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' The applicant is facing trial before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, for offences under sections 454 and 380, P.P.C. The case was registered through F.I.R. No,173 of 2000 at Airport Police Station. This F.I.R. Mentioned that one Tanveer was seen taking away a bag containing traveler cheques from the office of the complainant and he was also seen by one Asghar. Afterwards, according to prosecution case, the said traveler cheques were recovered from three persons, viz. The present applicant and co-accused Nasir Jamal and Mazhar Iqbal.
2. Mr. Luqman-ul-Haq, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the co-accused Mazhar Iqbal and Nasir Jamal have been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is not different.
3. The contention is not acceptable because the case of the present applicant is different from that of the two other accused persons as, according to the F.I.R. This applicant was seen taking away the stolen property from the place of the incident. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, that one Asghar who, according to F.I.R., saw the applicant coming out from the office i,e, that place of incident, has not been shown as a witness in the charge-sheet, is borne out from the record. The learned counsel of the applicant further submits that the memo.s of recovery show that some traveler's cheques, having the same numbers, were recovered from two different accused persons. The learned counsel submits that all the stolen property has been recovered and the applicant, being a Government servant, is not likely to abscond.
4. Mr. Habibur Rashid, learned counsel for the State, concedes that one Asghar, named in the F.I.R.
As a witness, has not been mentioned in the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer.
5. In view of the facts that the stolen property has been recovered and the employment of the applicant may be considered as a circumstances to ensure that there is no probability of his absconsion, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to surety in the sum of Rs,1,50,000 and PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.