ABDUL RAZZAK alias KOTCHI vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Abdul Razzaq, who was charged under sections 382, 411, 337-A(ii), and 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where he allegedly forcibly took cattle and inflicted injuries on the complainant and his companions. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the nature of the offence and his criminal history. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, observing that he was caught red-handed while committing the offence, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was a habitual offender with a history of similar criminal activities, creating fear in the area. Consequently, the Court determined that releasing such an individual would undermine the rule of law, particularly as his co-accused remained an absconder and the challan had already been submitted for trial.
- Does an offence under section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause for the purpose of bail?
- Can the criminal history and habitual nature of an accused be considered grounds for refusing post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if their co-accused is still an absconder?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.--- Abdul Razzaq, petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,14 of 2005, dated 10-4-2005 under sections 382/411/337-A(ii)/337-L(ii), P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Shahwali Tehsil Rujhan District Rajanpur.
2. According to the F.I.R. On 10-4-2005 the complainant was grazing his cattle in his fields. At 10/11 a.m. He came to his house in the village and the cattle were left in watch on control of one Rashid Ahmad It is further stated that at 1-30 p.m. The said Rashid Ahmad came to the complainant and told him that the complainant's cattle had been forcibly taken away by Abdul Razzaq, petitioner and Shafique Ahmad, co-accused. The complainant along with Mazhar Shah and Liaquat chased the accused and soon got them on the way. Both the accused allegedly inflicted Sota blows to the complainant and his companion, when they tried to catch hold the accused. On the hue and cry of complainant and his companions people of nearby houses attracted to the spot and the accused seeing them ran away leaving the cattle there. The complainant got recorded the F.I.R. On the same day at 3-15 p.m.
3. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last six months; that the petitioner is not attributed any specific injury; that though other cases had been registered against the petitioner, but he has not been convicted in any of the cases; that the offences are not cognizable and the bail should not be withheld. It is further argued that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and his case is of further inquiry, therefore, he is entitled to grant of bail.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for State has submitted that the petitioner is a record holder; he is habitual offender; he was caught red-handed along with the looted property; the challan has been sent up for trial and Shafique Ahmad, co-accused of petitioner is still absconder.
5. Argument heard and record perused. The petitioner was caught red-handed' while committing the offence of theft. The petitioner and his co-accused were armed with Sotas and they inflicted injuries on the persons of complainant and his companions who after chasing the accused tried to apprehend them. The offence under section 382, P.P.C. With which the petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory clause. From the perusal of police record the petitioner seems to be habitual, who has been committing similar offences and has created a fear and terror in the area. The petitioner is harden criminal and record holder. Many cases of similar nature had already been registered against him. His co-accused is still absconder. If such-like persons are released on bail within such a short span of time, they would certainly take the law lightly. The challan has been submitted in the Court. In the above circumstances this Court is not inclined to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The bail is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN alias CHOTO Versus State 2020 YLRN 45