MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, who was charged under Section 21 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 regarding the offenses of 'rassagiri' or 'patharidari'. The core legal question was whether a prima facie case existed to justify the denial of bail, given the absence of evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged harboring of cattle thieves or receiving proceeds from such theft. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish reasonable grounds or foundational evidence to support the allegations. Consequently, the Court granted bail, determining that the case fell within the sphere of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that for an offense under Section 21 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, the prosecution must present specific evidence or reasonable grounds demonstrating that the accused provided shelter, refuge, or assistance to thieves and received a share of the stolen cattle or proceeds thereof; absent such evidence, the case warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail.
- What are the essential elements required to establish the offense of 'rassagiri' or 'patharidari' under Section 21 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Does the absence of foundational evidence linking an accused to the harboring of thieves or receipt of proceeds constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can a police report alone, without supporting eye-witness accounts or foundational facts, establish a prima facie case sufficient to deny bail?
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 21, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
Upon written report of Ata Ullah Khan, S.I. Police Station, Fateh pur, which was formally entered at No, 220 of 2004 on 12.7.2004, in the register maintained under Section 154, of the Cr.P.C. by the police, under Section 21 of the Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979, the petitioner was arrested on 16.7.2004 and had applied for bail after arrest before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge but the same was declined on 20.7.2004. Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been roped into in the above mentioned case without any reasonable ground, for the alleged commission of offence. No single witness had stated against the petitioner with regard to the petitioner having committed any offence. No record or any document was available on the record, to prove prima facie case even through any such allegations against the petitioner.
3. Opposing the bail, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the State that in such cases, no eye-witness account can be brought by the Police and no one from the public would be available to give statement as against such persons. Therefore, written application/statement from the Police official may be given weight and preference.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and for the State. I have also perused the record. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance VI of 1979 is as follow for ready reference: "Whoever extends patronage, protection or assistance in' any form to, or harbours any person or group of persons engaged in, the theft of cattle, on the understanding that he shall receive one or more of the cattle, in respect of which the offence is committed, or a share in the proceeds thereof, is said to commit "rassagiri" or "patharidari".
5. From the above noted section, it appears that there must be some reasonable grounds to hold and consider prima facie a person to be involved in the commission of such offences. There must be some reason/ground apparent on the record to show that the person who is being proceeded against is providing shelter or refuge to thieves or criminals or is providing assistance in any form to such persons, who are involved in the commission of theft of -cattle and that he must be recipient of a share out of those cattle or from the income received therefrom upon the disposal of these cattle. If no such basis has been found on the record, in such an event, it would bring the case into the domain of further inquiry.
6. From the perusal of record, it reveals that no such evidence has been brought or collected by the police as yet. On what basis the police have formed such an opinion is still lacking. There is no cavil to the proposition that police officials are as good as other public witnesses yet the informant of FIR has not given any eye-witness account or the foundational structure, basing his alleged and asserted opinion, so as to consider the person involved in that offence. So, under the facts and circumstances noted above, the case of the petitioner has fallen within the sphere of further inquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs, 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa Magistrate.