GHULAM HUSSAIN and another vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from a criminal case where the applicants, Ghulam Hussain and Hussain Ali, sought post-arrest bail in connection with an offence under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a highway robbery involving the theft of eight generators. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given their claim of being bona fide traders who purchased the goods through valid payment, versus the prosecution's assertion that the goods were stolen property recovered from their possession and sold at suspicious, below-market prices. The court held that the applicants were not entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision is that the recovery of stolen property from the applicants' possession, coupled with the suspicious circumstances of the transaction—specifically the significantly undervalued price of the new goods—established a sufficient prima facie connection to the offence. The court affirmed that claims of bona fide purchase do not negate liability when the surrounding circumstances indicate the handling of stolen property, particularly in cases involving organized highway robbery.
- Does the purchase of goods through a cheque and receipt automatically absolve a person of liability for possessing stolen property?
- Is bail appropriate when stolen property is recovered from the possession of the accused and sold at significantly below-market prices?
- Does the explanation of delay in lodging an FIR sufficiently address the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ZIA PERWEZ, J.---Applicants Ghulam Hussain and Hussain Ali are facing trial for an offence under section 395, P.P.C. Registered under F.I.R. No,90/2007 of P.S. Steel Town, Karachi, seek bail..
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25-5-2007 at 2330 hours, one Zar Khan (Broker) called one Muhammad Asad Malik on telephone that 8 imported Generators which were loaded on Truck No,RIN 4416 from Port Qasim and were made proceed to Lahore. The said truck was intercepted at about 2332 hours near _P.S. Farm Link Road, Steel Town, by another truck out of the said truck 5 muffled persons got down, two were armed with T.T. Pistols, they got down driver and cleaner from the truck and they took truck towards super highway together with cash of Rs,25,000 lying in the truck.
3. Heard the learned counsel and perused the record. Contention of Mr. Raza Hashmi, learned counsel for the applicant, is that the applicant is bona fide trader. He has purchased goods from a broker against valid receipt and due payment made through cheque. He is not involved in the commission of any offence nor nominated in the F.I.R., which is lodged with delay. He is not owner of the godown from where the recovery has been effected. There is nothing on record to connect,the applicants with the commission of offence. He has contended that the section 411 P.P.C. Is attracting which is only punishable up to three years and applicants should be enlarged on bail. He has relied upon the cases of Atta Muhammad v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1431), Tasawar Ali v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1433) and Shehzore and another v. The State (2006 YLR 3167).
4. The application is opposed by Mr. Agha Zafir, learned State counsel. He states that the recovery has been effected from the possession of the applicants. The new generators have been sold at throughway prices which goes to show that the parties were dealing in stolen property, therefore, the broker were dealing with such property and under the circumstances he is equally liable. He has further contended that highway robberies are being carried on by an organized gang. He has relied upon the cases of Guddu alias Zulfiqar v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1212, Mst. Parveen Akhtar v.
'The State (2002 SCM R 1886) and Sher Dil Khoso v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 174$).
5. That recovery has been effected after the applicants claimed their ownership and possession with the goods on the ground of 'payment, which is stated to be significantly below the actual price for such new goods. The broker dealing with stolen property or the fact of payment against such goods through cheque would not alter the position as to offence. Bail was denied in the case of Guddu alias Zulfiqar v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ .1212). The delay in lodging the FIR: is duly explained as the information was received after release of the driver. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicants is distinguishable. There is sufficient material on record showing recovery of stolen property comprising of 8 generators from possession of accused Ghulam Hussain for which the co-accused acted as broker to sell the robbed goods connecting the present applicants with commission of instant offence.
6. For the foregoing reason, the bail application is dismissed.