FAKHARUDDIN QUNDRANI vs THE STATE
This is a criminal bail application arising from F.I.R. No. 748/2008 registered under section 392/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shahra-e-Faisal, Karachi, concerning the armed snatching of a car. The core legal question is whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail given the identification of the accused in an identification parade and the prompt recovery of the vehicle and an unlicensed weapon. The Lahore High Court held that no case for bail was made out and dismissed the application. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is positively identified during an identification parade and incriminating recoveries are made shortly after the commission of the offence, bail will be refused.
- Whether an accused identified in an identification parade and connected with a robbery is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the prompt recovery of a snatched vehicle and an unlicensed weapon preclude the grant of bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. FAISAL ARAB, J.-Applicant Fakhruddin Qundrani is booked in F.I.R. No,748/2008 under section 392/34, P.P.C. Shahra-e-Faisal, Karachi. According to the F.I.R, some unknown persons snatched the car of the complainant at gun point at 3-00 a.m. Night. However, in the early morning they were arrested by the police at Neepa along with an unlicensed weapon. During the identification parade the complainant identified the present accused being one of the accused persons who had snatched his car.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that it is unbelievable that the applicant who snatched the car at 3-00 a.m. At night but did not leave Karachi and he was arrested in the morning. He further stated that when the police stopped the applicant he did not run away meaning thereby that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further stated -that the applicant has been involved in a number of cases and he is treated as "usual suspect" by the police. He contended that one day before this incident the uncle of the applicant had lodged a complaint with the police that an attempt was made to kidnap him (uncle) and the present applicant (nephew) by 25 persons but he succeeded in avoiding such attempt but those persons kidnapped the present applicant.
3. 'Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that recovery has been made from the applicant within four hours and that he was also -carrying an unlicensed weapon. He further contended that the complainant has identified the present accused in the identification parade as one of the culprits.
4. 'In these circumstances, no case for bail is made out. Resultantly, bail application is dismissed.