Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: LIAQAT ALI VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Rustam Ali MalikMashhood Hussain,Safia Khatoon
2005 Y L R 1984
2005 Y L R 1984
[Lahore]
Before Rustam Ali Malik, J
LIAQAT ALI and another---Petitioners
versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.4640-B of 2004, decided on 13th July, 2004.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.381---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---Clear allegation of committing theft of medicines of approximate value of Rs.5,00,000 from medicine shop of complainant was levelled against the accused---Accused, in circumstances, was not entitled to concession of bail---Bail application of accused was dismissed and order whereby interim pre-arrest bail was allowed to him was withdrawn.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.381---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---No direct allegation was available against co-accused in F.I.R. and his case was distinguishable from that of accused---Co-accused could be allowed concession of bail---Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to him was confirmed.
Mashhood Hussain for Petitioner.
Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Complainant.
Safia Khatoon for the State with Pervaiz, S.-I.
ORDER
The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.130 of 2004 registered on 7-6-2004 in Police Station, Lohari Gate, Lahore under section 381, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. was lodged by one Sheikh Muhammad Tufail, regarding the theft of cartons of medicines from his medicine shop by his employee Liaqat Ali and who had been selling the same to Abdul Sattar and his son Mubashar (of Al-Ghaffar Medicines) at throw away prices. He had sold away to them the stolen medicines of the value of Rs.50,000 and with the sale proceeds had purchased a motorcycle, a deep freezer, a deck and other articles and had also lent. an amount of Rs.42,000 to Muhammad Asif, co-accused.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case by the police in connivance with the complainant as a habeas petition had been filed against the S.H.O. concerned and was disposed of on 7-6-2004 under the orders of this Court after the alleged detenus had been released, this case was registered on the same day against them under section 381, P.P.C. and that Abdul Sattar and Mubashar co-accused have already been granted bail in this case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 25-6-2001 and that on the basis of principle of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to the 'same concession and hence they be allowed pre-arrest bail.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides. Admittedly the habeas corpus petition No. (Crl. Miscellaneous No.523-H of 2004) which was regarding the alleged detention of Liaqat Ali and Asif petitioner had been decided by this Court on 7-6-2004 as no criminal case by then had been registered against them. The learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that it was due to the said reason that the petitioner have been falsely implicated in this case with ulterior motives and hence they are entitled to the concession of bail.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State had resisted the petition on the ground that it was not due to filing of the habeas corpus petition that the petitioners had been involved in this case and that actually Liaqat Ali, petitioner No.1 had been working at the medicine shop of the complainant and it is he who in connivance with his co-accused had committed theft of medicines of the value of Rs.5,00,000 and had sold away the same. He had allegedly given an amount of Rs.12,000 to Asif petitioner No.2 and hence he is also liable for the offence.
7. There is no direct allegation of theft against Asif, petitioner No.2. It is not the case of the prosecution that Asif, petitioner No.2, had ever worked at the medicine shop of the complainant. If petitioner No. I had ever lent him any amount, it is altogether a different matter and merely the said fact is not enough to deny to him the concession of pre-arrest bail. But so far as Liaqat Ali petitioner No.1 is concerned, there is a clear allegation against him of committing theft of medicines of the approximate value of Rs.5,00,000 from the medicine shop of the complainant. It has been stated that the recovery is yet to be effected. Therefore, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, Liaqat Ali petitioner No.1 is not entitled to the concession of bail. But so far as Asif petitioner No.2 is concerned, as there is no direct allegation against him in the F.I.R. therefore, his case is distinguishable from petitioner No.1 and he can be allowed the concession of bail.
8. In view of what has been stated above, the bail application to the extent of Liaqat Ali, petitioner No.1 is dismissed and the order dated 30-6-2004 whereby the interim pre-arrest bail was allowed to him is hereby withdrawn. However, the bail application to the extent of Asif petitioner No.2 is accepted and the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to him is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.35,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within seven days.
H.B.T./L-125/L Order accordingly.