2024 S C M R 1210
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Irfan Saadat Khan, JJ
ATTAULLAH---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Petition No.35-K of 2024, decided on 4th April, 2024.
(Against the judgment dated 14.3.2024 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Spl. Cr. Bail Appeal No.17 of 2024).
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 2(s), 16, 157(1) & 178---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Pilferage and stealing of Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants (POL) through a concealed pipeline---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Petitioner (accused) had been assigned the role of a pilot to a vehicle in which the stolen POL was stored for transporting it to some other destination---Admittedly the High Court granted bail to four co-accused persons---Petitioner was a low paid employee like the said co-accused persons who had been granted bail by the High Court---First Information Report indicated the case of joint recovery of stolen POL from several persons including the petitioner and four other persons who had already been extended the benefit of bail by the High Court---It was not the case of the prosecution at present stage that the petitioner was found stealing or pilfering the POL but he was attributed the role of a pilot---Whether he was involved directly or vicariously or with the group of persons with common intention to commit the crime of alleged smuggling was something that could not be decided without recording evidence to prove his guilt, and required further inquiry---Petition was converted into appeal and allowed; and the petitioner was granted bail.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Bail---Further inquiry---Principles---Case of further inquiry pre-supposes the tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of the accused in the crime whereas the expression "reasonable grounds" refers to grounds which may be legally tenable, admissible in evidence, and appealing to a reasonable judicial mind as opposed to being whimsical, arbitrary, or presumptuous---Prosecution has to demonstrate that it is in possession of sufficient material/evidence, constituting 'reasonable grounds' that accused had committed an offence falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, while for attaining bail, the accused has to show that the evidence/material collected by the prosecution and/or the defence plea taken by him created reasonable doubt/suspicion in the prosecution case and he is entitled to the benefit of bail---For all intents and purposes, the doctrine of 'further inquiry' denotes a notional and exploratory assessment that may create doubt regarding the involvement of the accused in the crime.
(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Bail---Rule of consistency---Scope---Rule of consistency, or in other words, the doctrine of parity in criminal cases, including bail matters, encapsulates that where the incriminated and ascribed role to the accused is one and the same as that of the co-accused then the benefit extended to one accused should be extended to the co-accused also on the principle that like cases should be treated alike but after accurate evaluation and assessment of the co-offenders' role in the commission of the alleged offence---While applying the doctrine of parity in bail matters, the Court is obligated to concentrate on the constituents of the role assigned to the accused and then decide whether a case for the grant of bail on the standard of parity or rule of consistency is made out or not.
Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Khaleeque Ahmed, D.A.G. for the State.
Comments
Post a Comment