WAQAR ALI alias BOADI vs THE STATE and anothers
Through this petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 199 of 2012 registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Garden Town, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail despite being implicated through a supplementary statement, having the snatched motorcycle recovered from his possession, and being charged with an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petition lacks merit, noting that the stolen motorcycle was recovered upon the pointing out of the petitioner, thereby rendering Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 inapplicable to such recoveries, and that the offense under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause. The court laid down the principle that Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not apply where a stolen article is recovered on the pointing out of the accused, and dismissed the bail petition.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is charged with an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the stolen property is recovered from his possession?
- Does Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to the recovery of a stolen article made on the pointing out of the accused?
- What is the evidentiary effect of a supplementary statement implicating an accused whose graphic description was already provided in the initial F.I.R.?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.---Through this petition filed under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner Wagar Ali alias Boadi son of Agha Idrees seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 199 of 2012 dated 27- 2-2012 for offense under section 392/411, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Garden Town, District Lahore.
2. According to the F.I.R. On 26-2-2012 at 4-50 p.m. An unknown person armed with a pistol snatched a motorcycle Honda CG.125 Registration No,LEO-808 belonging to the complainant. A graphic description of the accused person was also given in the F.I.R.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R.
And was implicated with the commission of offence by the complainant by getting his supplementary statement recorded after six days of the occurrence. The F.I.R. Was lodged with a delay of one day. No identification parade was held to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. No private person was co-opted at the time of raid in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is innocent and has been falsely roped in this case.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has opposed the petition and submitted that a graphic description of the accused was given while getting. The F.I.R recorded. A motorcycle which was snatched from the complainant was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has been charged with an offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, hence the petitioner is. Not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. No one is present on behalf of the complainant in spite of being informed about the fixation of the case by Sakhawat Ali A.S.-I.
6. After going through the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perusing the record of the case, it is clear that the F.I.R. Was registered against an unknown person, however, the material particulars and a graphic description of the accused was given in it. The F.I.R. Was lodged on the very next day of the occurrence, hence it cannot be said that the same was lodged with an inordinate delay. A motorcycle Honda CG.125 Registration No,LEO-808 belonging to the complainant was recovered from the petitioner. During the investigation the complainant identified the motorcycle recovered from the petitioner to be his own. The petitioner would not get any benefit of section 103, Cr.P.C. As he himself led to the recovery of the, motorcycle which was snatched from the complainant. Section 103, Cr.P.C. Would apply in a case where the police officials conduct a search of a premises to recover a stolen article but not where a stolen article is recovered on the pointing out of the accused as has been held in Gulsher and another v. The State 2004 YLR 602, Ali Khan and another v. The State 2010 PCr.LJ 11 and Riaz Hussain v. The State 2010 M LD 1127. The complainant whose motorcycle was snatched by the petitioner on gun-point while travelling on a public road has been charged under section 392, P.P.C, an offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. There are no grounds for taking a lenient view in this case as a result of which this petition fails and is dismissed.