Haji Abdul Rasheed vs The State
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Haji Abdul Rasheed in case FIR No. 100/1997 registered under Sections 409, 477-A, 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Sections 5(2) and 47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 at Police Station FIA/CBC, Multan. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of delay in the trial and the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner has made out a case for bail as his co-accused stand enlarged on bail and his case is not distinguishable from theirs. The court laid down the principle of consistency in bail matters, holding that where the case of an accused person is not distinguishable from co-accused who are already on bail, the rule of consistency applies, supporting the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail when co-accused facing the same allegations have already been enlarged on bail?
- Does undue delay in the progress of a trial constitute a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether recovery of allegedly embezzled amounts precludes the court from granting post-arrest bail when the rule of consistency applies?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 477-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 47, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHARY, C.J.- Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 100/1997, dated 3.12.1997 registered under Sections 409, 477-A, 109, PPC read with Section 5(2), 47, PCA at Police Station FIA/CBC, Multan.
2. Petitioner was allowed bail earlier but later the to him was recalled by order dated 1 7.4.2000 by this Court.
3. Bail of the petitioner has been sought for on the ground that co-accused of the petitioner are on bail and trial of the criminal case against the petitioner had not made any progress at all and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
4. Learned Standing Counsel opposed the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that he was duly connected with a commission of offence and a sum of Rs.4,82,000/- was also recovered from him. It was submitted that , petitioner himself had obtained adjournments for longer period and for that reason the trial could not make any progress and as such he did not reserve the concession of bail on that ground either.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view^that petitioner has a case for grant of bail now. His co-accused stand enlarged on. Bail. Case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from them. Petitioner is also allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 25 Lacs with four sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Judge.