SAAD vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South), which rejected the applicant's pre-trial bail in Sessions Case No. 833 of 2006. The core legal question is whether the alleged act of mobile snatching without being armed or making preparation for causing death or hurt constitutes theft under Section 378 or theft with preparation for causing hurt under Section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail. The High Court held that since the applicant was not armed and no recovery of arms was shown, the case prima facie fell under ordinary theft punishable with up to three years imprisonment, bringing it outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that mobile snatching without the use or preparation of arms or violence does not warrant the denial of bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
- Does mobile snatching without being armed or making preparation for causing hurt fall under Section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offence carries a maximum punishment that does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 378, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, J.---This bail application had been filed against the order of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) in Sessions Case No,833 of 2006, dated 23-6-2006, whereby bail application was rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the F.I.R. Are that the applicantsnatched a mobile phone of the complainant which he was holding in his hand and ran away and was caught red-handed by the applicant with the help of two A.S.-Is., who were present on the occasion. However, there is no allegation that he was armed or that he had made some arrangement for his escape.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case does not fall under section 382, P.P.C. Under which section the F.I.R. Has been registered as it has not been alleged that the applicant had made preparation for causing death or hurt or fear of death during commission of the theft. The learned counsel submitted that it was an ordinary theft which would fall under section 378, P.P.C. For which maximum punishment provided is three years.
4. The learned State Counsel opposed this bail application as according to him mobile snatching has become a common act in the city and a number of persons have been murdered during such mobile snatching. However, in this case there is no allegation of applicant being armed and no recovery of arms has been shown.
5. I am, therefore, of the view that the applicant is entitled to bail.I would, therefore, admit the applicant to bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bound in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. The applicant is directed to extend his full cooperation in proceedings of the case failing which concession of to him may be withdrawn.