MUHAMMAD RASHID vs The STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Rashid, who was charged under Section 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery. The prosecution alleged that the accused robbed the complainant of cash and a mobile phone at gunpoint and was apprehended on the spot by patrolling police officers. The accused contended that the incident was a mere quarrel and that he was falsely implicated in collusion with the police. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the circumstances of his arrest and the recovery of case property. The Court held that the accused failed to make out a case for bail, noting that he was arrested on the spot with the stolen property and that no previous enmity was established. The Court affirmed that police witnesses are competent witnesses in such circumstances, particularly when independent witnesses are unavailable. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings by framing charges and examining key witnesses within three months.
- Are police witnesses considered competent witnesses in cases where independent witnesses are unavailable due to the time of the incident?
- Does the recovery of stolen property from the accused at the time of arrest constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
- Is the absence of previous enmity between the complainant and the accused a factor in determining bail eligibility?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this bail application applicant seeks post arrest bail in Crime No,224 of 2012 for offence under section 392/34, P.P.C.
2. ' The allegation against the applicant Muhammad Rashid is that on 15-7-2012 he robbed Rs,1000 and a Nokia mobile phone on gun point at odd hours of night at 0300 hours from complainant Saleem Khan when he was returning from his job and the applicant/accused was arrested on the spot. And pistol have been foisted upon the applicant/accused. He further states that no such incident has taken place but a quarrel had taken place between complainant and applicant/accused, therefore, the complainant with the collusion of police has involved the present applicant. He further submits that no progress has been made in the trial of the applicant/accused while case papers were supplied to applicant/accused on 15-7-2012, therefore, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. He place reliance on the case-law reported as Asif Raza v. The State (2006 PCr.LJ 1628) and 2010 YLR 223 (Sarfraz v. The State).
3. ' On the other hand learned A.P.-G. Opposed the grant of bail and states that name of applicant transpires in F.I.R with specific role and applicant/accused was arrested on the spot and recovery was affected. No previous enmity is disclosed in F.I.R.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. After snatching the mobile phone and cash from complainant, complainant made hue and cry which attracted two police constables, who were on patrolling duty they followed the applicant/ accused and arrested him on the spot with case property. Mashirnama was prepared on the spot. In the odd hours of night to arrange independent witnesses is difficult. In these type of cases no independent witnesses are ready, therefore, police witnesses are as good witnesses as independent witnesses.
5. No previous enmity is proved between the applicant/accused and complainant. In case referred above 2006 PCr.LJ 1628, bail was granted to applicant/accused on the ground that no recovery was effected from the applicant when he was arrested on the spot and in this case in hand recovery is made from sole possession of applicant/accused. In the case cited above as 2010 YLR 223, in that case both the witnesses failed to identify the accused in Court and the witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution. The facts and circumstances of the case are distinguishable to that of above referred case, therefore the same are not applicable.
6. ' The result of above discussion is that counsel for applicant/ accused has not been able to make out a case for bail, therefore, this bail application is dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to frame the charge in case and at least two witnesses i,e, complainant and mashir of recovery be examined within the period of three months.