MUHAMMAD DANISH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Danish, who was charged under Sections 392 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged robbery of a mobile phone. The applicant sought post-arrest bail after his initial plea was rejected by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the nature of the evidence. The High Court observed that the recovery of the robbed mobile phone was joint, involving both the applicant and a co-accused, rather than being from the exclusive possession of the applicant. Furthermore, the court noted that no specific active role in the commission of the crime was assigned to the applicant. Consequently, the court held that the applicant's guilt required further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where recovery of robbed property is joint and not exclusive, and no specific active role is attributed to the accused, the case against the accused warrants further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to the grant of bail.
- Does a joint recovery of stolen property from multiple accused persons entitle an applicant to bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
- Is the absence of an assigned active role in the commission of a crime a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' QAISER IQBAL, J.---Applicant Muhammad Danish son of Muhammad Yousaf, detained in Crime No,290 of 2005, under sections 392 and 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Taimoria, Karachi- Central has applied for bail. His bail plea was rejected by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-Central, he has resorted to file the application for redress.
2. ' The facts leading to the F.I.R. Are that complainant Shakeel son of Abdul Jaleel was returning from his place of job at about 1945 hours reached on Landi Kotal Chowrangi in front of Dental College at Block-L, suddenly two culprits came and placed their motorcycle in parallel position, demanded mobile phone, upon which the complainant handed over his mobile fearing danger to his life, the culprits ran away. Later police came, the complainant informed the incident, the culprits were chased, were caught and from the possession of the applicant and co-accused Imran Aziz recovered robbed article Mobile Phone Nokia No,3310.
3. ' The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that police had encircled the applicant, while moving on motorcycle at Block-L, North Nazimabad, along with co-accused and called upon them to produce the licence and documents of motorcycle, on the tussle between the applicant and co-accused police shifted them to police station. The police had booked the applicant in a false case for snatching mobile phone from the possession of the applicant. It is further contended that no independent witness has been examined by the police in the case, which renders the investigation doubtful. It is urged that no active role of commission of crime is assigned to the applicant, recovery was joint and on the basis of the statement of the complainant the guilt of the accused shall require further inquiry. In support of the above contention, reliance is placed on 1994 MLD Karachi 1014, 1999 PCr.LJ 1529, 2003 PCr.LJ Karachi Page 411.
4. ' Mr. Agha Zafir Ali, the learned State counsel has opposed the bail application on the premises that the applicant was arrested on the spot and the robbed mobile phone was recovered from his possession along with two double edged daggers.
5. ' It is manifestly clear from the challan that mobile phone was secured from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused Imran Aziz as is reflected from the F.I.R. No active role of the commission of crime is assigned to the applicant, recovery was joint and not from the exclusive possession of the applicant. Even on the basis of the statement of complainant Shakeel Ahmed, memo. Of arrest and seizure, the statements of P.C. Dilshad Hussain, P.C. Muhammad Saeed, P.C.
6. Syed Shahzad and S.-I. Muhammad Fayaz.
7. ' It is spelled out that the recovery of the robbed property was joint, therefore the guilt of the applicant requires further inquiry.
8. ' In view of the above facts and circumstances, applicant Muhammad Danish son of Muhammad Yousuf is admitted to bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Fifty Thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD MAJID vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 1055