Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: RIAZ KHAN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Ejaz Afzal KhanArshad Hasan Yousafzai
2012 Y L R 830
[Peshawar]
Before Ejaz Afzal Khan, C.J
RIAZ KHAN---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1630 of 2011, heard on 31st October, 2011.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, criminal misconduct---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Theft of identity cards---Whether accused was on duty at the relevant time of offence and whether he alone could be held responsible when theft had been committed in a secret and sophisticated manner, were questions requiring further inquiry---Accused remained in police custody, yet nothing came to the fore to link him with the crime---Co-accused, who had been assigned similar role had been granted bail---Accused was released on bail, in circumstances.
Arshad Hasan Yousafzai for Petitioner.
Faridullah Kundi Standing Counsel for the State.
Date of hearing: 31st October, 2011.
JUDGMENT
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, C.J.---Petitioner who is charged in a case registered against him under section 409, P.P.C. R/W.5(2), P.C. Act, vide F.I.R. No.57 dated 1-9-2011 in Police Station FIA Crime Circle, Peshawar, has asked for his release on bail on the grounds that nothing incriminating came to the fore notwithstanding he remained in Police custody; that he was not present at the time of the occurrence in the premises wherefrom identity cards have been stolen and that two other co-accused who have been assigned similar role have been granted bail.
2. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State argued that the petitioner was on duty at the relevant time, therefore, he alone is accountable for the left of the identity cards and that he being, prima facie, linked with a crime attracting prohibitory clause does not deserve the concession of bail.
3. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submis-sions of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Whether the petitioner was on duty at the relevant time and whether he alone could be held responsible when theft seems to have been committed in a secret and sophisticated manner, are the questions requiring further inquiry. The fact that the accused remained in Police custody, yet nothing came to fore to link him with a crime, would constitute yet another circumstance, which would weight in favour of bail rather than Jail.
5. Quite apart from this, when the co-accused assigned similar roles have been granted bail, petitioner cannot be dealt with differently. I, thus, allow this petition and direct the release of the petitioner on bail, if he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate who is to ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
H.B.T./17/P Bail allowed.