DINAL alias KURARO vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Dinal alias Kuraro, who is charged with robbery and causing firearm injuries under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail despite the prosecution's evidence, including the recovery of the stolen motorcycle and an unlicensed weapon from his possession shortly after the incident. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case. The court emphasized that the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that mere oral assertions of false implication due to family disputes, unsupported by documentary evidence, are insufficient to warrant bail. The court further directed the trial court to expedite the recording of evidence, given the accused's prolonged detention, establishing the principle that bail is not appropriate where prima facie evidence of guilt exists in serious offenses.
- Does the recovery of stolen property and an unlicensed weapon from an accused shortly after an incident constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Are mere oral assertions of false implication due to family disputes sufficient to rebut a prima facie case for the purpose of bail?
- Does an offense punishable under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' BIN YAMIN, J.---This order will dispose of bail application made on behalf of applicant/ accused Dinal alias Kuraro, who is detained in case F.I.R No,13/2007, registered under sections 324, 34, P.P.C.
2. Read with section 17 (3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, at P.S. Mehar of District Dadu.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are that on 10-1-2007, complainant Ghulam Sarwar lodged F.I.R at above noted police station, stating therein that he along with his maternal uncle Muhammad Younis and brother Ali Asghar left their village on motorcycle for Mehar Town. He further stated that when they reached near curve of village Kamanger, it was 12-00 hours. That at this place they saw three persons and identified them as Dinal alias Kuraro armed with gun, Totto armed with Kalashnikov and Niaz armed with pistol. The accused persons signaled complainant party to stop, on which they stopped. Thereafter the accused persons tried to rob the complainant and others of their motorcycle and on resistance accused Totto made fire with his Kalashnikov which hit complainant on his knee. The applicant/ accused also fired with his gun of which's pellets hit the complainant.
4. Thereafter, it is alleged that the applicant/ accused and others forcibly took away the motorcycle of the complainant party. The complainant then came at police station and lodged F.I.R of the matter.
5. ' Heard Advocate for the applicant/ accused, learned State counsel and perused the case papers.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case because of some family dispute in between the parties. That the recovery if any allegedly made from the applicant/accused has been foisted upon applicant only to implicate him as culprit of this case. That applicant/accused was arrested on the day, on which the F.I.R was lodged after an encounter with police, but nobody in the alleged encounter sustained any injury. That challan has been filed against the applicant/accused and he is no more required by the police for further investigation. He, therefore, requested for grant of instant bail application.
7. ' Learned State Counsel has opposed this bail application on the ground that there is medical evidence which shows that complainant had sustained fire-arm injuries in this case. That soon after the incident applicant/ accused was arrested by the police and the robbed motorcycle along with DBBL gun was secured from his possession. Thus the prosecution has fully established its prima facie case against the applicant/ accused and there are reasonable grounds to believe that applicant/accused is involved in the commission of this offence. That the plea by the learned counsel for applicant/accused amounts to defence, which can be considered by the trial Court after recording of evidence and for the purpose of grant of bail this Court cannot undertake detailed examination of the defence pleas raised by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused. He, therefore, requested for rejection of this bail application.
8. Perusal of the case papers shows that applicant/ accused was soon after the incident arrested and robbed motorcycle was secured from his possession in presence of witnesses along with an unlicensed gun. There is presently nothing available on record to show that the complainant has reason to falsely implicate applicant/ accused and others in this case. No documentary proof has been brought on record to show that there exists any family dispute in between the parties. Merely oral word of the defence side is not sufficient to show that the applicant / accused is falsely involved in this case. It is also an admitted position that evidence of none of the A witnesses has been recorded in this case, therefore, prima facie there exists a case to believe that the applicant/ accused is involved in the commission of this offence. The punishment provided for the offence under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 is amputation of right hand and left foot of 14-years, therefore, the case also falls within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence, finding no merit in this application at this stage, I hereby dismiss the same. However, the learned trial Court is directed to examine material witnesses of this case within four months from the date of receipt of this order without fall under intimation to this Court, as the applicant/accused is detained in jail for the last more than one and half year.