MUHAMMAD NAZIR KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Nazir Khan, who was implicated in an F.I.R. registered under Sections 395, 458, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding a robbery involving gold ornaments, cash, and electronic items. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the recovery of looted items from his possession, his alleged habitual criminal behavior, and the rule of consistency regarding a co-accused who had been granted bail. The Court held that the petition should be dismissed. The ratio of the decision is that where there is sufficient material on record to establish a prima facie case, particularly when looted articles are recovered from the accused and identified by the complainant, bail should be refused, especially if the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted at the bail stage, and the petitioner's history of similar offenses further militates against the grant of bail.
- Does the recovery of looted articles from an accused, which are subsequently identified by the complainant, constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
- Is a court required to conduct a deep appreciation of evidence at the bail stage?
- Does the fact that a co-accused has been granted bail automatically entitle another accused to bail under the rule of consistency, even if the latter is a habitual offender?
- Does an offense falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally preclude the grant of bail?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.--- Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,275 of 2008, dated 9-7-2008, offence under sections 395, 458, 412 of P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Shahzad Town, Islamabad.
2. Precisely, allegation against the accused/petitioner is that he along with other co-accused entered the house of complainant through "Mumty" and snatched gold ornaments weighing 17 Tolas, 2 Cameras, four watches, prize bonds worth Rs,20,000, cash amount Rs,50,000 and 5 mobile phones, at gun point, hence this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been involved in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive; that he is not nominated in the F.I.R.; that alleged recovery has been effected from the house of petitioner, which is highly doubtful; that essentials of section 103 were not fulfilled at the time of recovery. Investigation of the case is complete and petitioner is no more required by police for further probe. He is behind the bars for the last 7 months. There is a delay of 5 days in registration of case, which is fatal for the prosecution. Recovery of one mobile phone has been effected from one of the co-accused namely Faisal, who has been granted post- arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad. Case of the petitioner is at par with him. In view of rule of consistency, petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. No independent witness has been associated in the recovery proceedings and recovery witnesses are police officials.
4. On the other hand, learned Federal Counsel has opposed the bail on the ground that looted items were recovered from the petitioner, which is a strong piece of evidence and during investigation, it is disclosed that they remained involved in other cases of similar nature.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record.
6. Petitioner was arrested after getting the record' of stolen mobile phones. During investigation, recovery of looted articles i,e, bangles, cash and cell phones has been effected front the petitioner and those articles were duly identified by the complainant of the case.
7. No enmity comes on record to falsely implicate the present petitioner. Record reveals that he is also involved in number of other cases of similar nature. Petitioner seems to be a habitual offender.
8. Deeper appreciation is not warranted under the law at bail stage and only bird's eye view is to be made. There is sufficient material available on the record to believe that petitioner has committed the offence, which falls under the prohibitory clause of section '497 of Cr.P.C. Challan has been submitted in the Court.
9. For what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to accept this petition, same is dismissed accordingly.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN alias CHOTO Versus State 2020 YLRN 45