ZULFIQAR AHMED vs STATE
This criminal petition arises from an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Zulfiqar Ahmad, who is charged under Sections 381A and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly hiring a vehicle, drugging the driver, stealing the vehicle, and demanding ransom for its return. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the discretionary relief of post-arrest bail despite the offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that while the offence did not fall under the prohibitory clause, the petitioner's involvement in multiple similar cases, his connection to organized car-snatching gangs, his confession before the political Tehsildar, and the recovery of the vehicle upon his pointation established him as a hardened criminal. The key principle laid down is that the discretionary relief of bail is not a matter of right solely because an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause, particularly when there is a significant likelihood of the accused repeating the offence.
- Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right if the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Can an accused be denied bail despite the offence not falling under the prohibitory clause if they are a hardened criminal involved in similar offences?
- Section 381A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner Zulfiqar Ahmad through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in a case FIR No. 129 dated 7.6.2005 under Section 381A/411 PPC registered with Police Station Fateh Jang, District Attock.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that he hired Suzuki Pick up No. LOK/2171 from the complainant for loading rice and selling the same in the area of Fateh Jang. He gave his address being resident of Tehsil Bhalwal. He also gave his Mobile No. 0301-5561085 to the complainant. On 5.6.2005, after administering some intoxicants to the driver of the complainant, took the vehicle to the tribal area. Thereafter he made a call to the complainant from the said mobile number and demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- for taking back his Suzuki Pick up from Dera Adam Khel. He was apprehended from there and vehicle was also recovered from his possession.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the police with mala fide intention; the prosecution story is false; the petitioner has no concern with the person named in the FIR; the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry; he is previous non-convict; he is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State opposed the instant petition.
5. The petitioner hired a pick up owned by the complainant and thereafter administering intoxicant to the driver, snatched the vehicle and demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- for return of the same. During investigation, it transpired that his real name is Zulfiqar whereas he at the time of hiring of vehicle given his name as Riaz Ahmad. The vehicle has been recovered on the pointation of the petitioner.
He is involved in so many other cases of similar nature. The petitioner has made a statement before the political Tehsildar, (FR), Kohat and admitted the occurrence as narrated by the complainant. He also admitted his involvement in other cases. Although, the offence for which the petitioner is charged does not fall under the prohibitory clause but on this sole ground, he is not entitled for the discretionary relief of bail as he is involved in so many other cases of similar nature.
There is every likelihood that he may repeat the same offence. During the investigation, it was also found that he has connections with the gangs of car snatchers and car lifters. After perusing the entire record, the trial Court has rightly held him a hardened criminal. In these circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency. Hence, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
6. It is informed that the Challan has been submitted in the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within three months. However, the petitioner may approach this Court again, if the trial is not completed within the time determined by this Court.