ROHEEL SANI vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case involving a robbery at a doctor's clinic. The petitioner sought bail, contending that he was falsely implicated, that the recovered mobile phone belonged to him, and that co-accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed the application, highlighting that the petitioner was specifically named in the complainant's supplementary statement, the recovered mobile phone was identified by the complainant, and the petitioner had a history of involvement in similar criminal cases, bringing the offence within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law. The Court observed that the complainant had no apparent malice against the petitioner and that the petitioner failed to provide proof of ownership for the recovered mobile phone. Noting the prevalence of such crimes and the petitioner's history of similar offences, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The petition was dismissed, establishing the principle that in cases of robbery and dacoity, the gravity of the offence and the accused's criminal history are significant factors weighing against the grant of bail.
- Does the recovery of a mobile phone identified by the complainant in a robbery case constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Can an accused's involvement in multiple similar criminal cases preclude the grant of bail under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when they claim ownership of recovered stolen property but fail to provide documentary proof?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that mobile phone, which was allegedly recovered from the petitioner belongs to him; that it was not the said mobile phone which was snatched during the robbery; that the petitioner has also been falsely implicated in three other cases of similar nature; that co-accused of the petitioner have been granted bail by the learned Magistrate; that no case for offence under section 392, P.P.C. Is made out against the petitioner; and that it is a case of further inquiry, which attracts the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to bail.
2. Conversely learned DPG submits that the complainant had named the petitioner in his supplementary statement; that mobile phone, which has been identified by the complainant who is a doctor, has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner; that the petitioner is also involved in 3/4 other cases of similar nature; and that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., hence the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 27-2-2007 on the same day the complainant in whose clinic robbery was committed, who is a doctor, made supplementary statement and implicated the petitioner. One mobile phone has been recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the said mobile phone was his own phone but he had not produced any receipt in that regard. He is also involved in 3/4 other cases of similar nature. In such like cases i.e. Robbery, dacoity and car-snatching the names of the culprits came on the record during investigation. The complainant has no malice against the petitioner. Such like cases are on peak in these days and one cannot be allowed to repeat the offence. In these circumstances, no case for grant of bail is made out. This petition stands dismissed.