Allah Rakha vs The State
The petitioner, Allah Rakha alias Shahbaz alias Butt, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 47/08 registered under Sections 381-A and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was not nominated in the F.I.R., the recovery of the stolen motorcycle was effected following his disclosure, and the offences allegedly did not fall within the prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's act of stealing a motorcycle belonging to a police official from a public place reflected desperation, and the recovery made pursuant to his disclosure was admissible under Article 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 while Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was inapplicable. Consequently, the court declined to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner and dismissed the bail application.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused is not nominated in the F.I.R. but leads to the recovery of stolen property?
- Is Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to the recovery of a motorcycle discovered through the accused's disclosure?
- Does the recovery of stolen property pursuant to an accused's disclosure remain admissible under Article 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Whether the theft of a vehicle from a public place reflecting the accused's desperation justifies the refusal of post-arrest bail?
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 40, Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984
ORDER S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J. - Allah Rakha alias Shahbaz alias Butt petitioner seeks baib after arrest in case- F.I.R. No. 47/08, dated 12.1.1008 for offences under Sections 381-A/411, P.P.C, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore.
2. The ground taken for bail is that the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R.; that even if the recovery is effected, case under Section 411, P.P.C, would be made out and that at all events the offences in which the petitioner has been indicted do not fall within the prohibitory clause, it was claimed that in such cases, bail is granted as a rule and rejection thereof is an exception. Reliance was placed on 2008 P.Cr.L.J. 611.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State opposed the bail.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and D.P.G, for the State, I. Quite see that the recovery of the stolen motorcycle belonging to traffic warden, Sector Mall-11, Lahore was effected from the petitioner who was arrested in some other case (F.I.R. No. 625/2008) for offence under Section 380, P.P.C, In the course of investigation, the petitioner disclosed and led to the recovery of stolen motorcycle belonging to a police warden. The nature of the offence forming the subject- matter of both the F.I.Rs., as afore-mentioned, is almost the same. The act of the petitioner is stealing away the motorcycle belonging to a police official right from Regal Chowk, Lahore, cannot be taken lightly, it reflects his desperation. The argument that there was violation of Section 103, Cr.P.C, has no force at all, because in case of recovery of motorcycle, Section 103, Cr.P.C, was hardly applicable the moreso when the accused had himself led to discovery of a fact, In such situation, the recovery made would be admissible under Article 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
The argument in that context was, therefore, nothing but a subterfuge. Considering the nature of offence in which the petitioner .Is involved, I am not inclined to exercise may discretion in his favour.
His application is dismissed.