Hameed vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Hameed, in a criminal case involving charges of extortion and criminal intimidation. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the allegations of demanding 'Bhatta' (extortion money) under threat of violence, the corroborating statements of prosecution witnesses, and the applicant's status as a fugitive from law for two years. The Court held that the applicant failed to make out a case for bail, noting that the applicant was specifically nominated in the FIR, implicated by multiple witnesses whose statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 appeared credible, and that the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is nominated in the FIR, supported by consistent witness statements, and has a history of absconsion, bail should be refused, particularly in cases involving serious offenses like extortion that are prevalent in society.
- Does the status of an accused as a fugitive from law affect the court's discretion in granting post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted where the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Are statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient to deny bail at the pre-trial stage?
- Section 386, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 384, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 387, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.--- Through this bail application, the applicant Hameed son of Muhammad Ali seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No,123/2011 of Police Station Manghopir, registered under Section 386, 511, 506/B, 384, 387 and 34 PPC from this Court, as his similar request was turned down by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.10.2013.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant lodged FIR stated therein that he is doing business of making block and his factory Glorious Enterprises is situated at Walgi Goth Manghopir Road where many labours are working. From last two months one person Hameed alongwith 3/2 persons who are identified by their faces so many time came to factory of complainant and demanded Bhatta but complainant refused to pay the same. On the fateful day, complainant alongwith workers was busy in work at 5.00 pm, all of sudden applicant came and developed fear in his labours by showing pistol and disclosed that he belonged to PPPP Aman Committee and demanded Rs,25,000/- or to close the factory and in case of none payment of Bhatta they will lost their lives so also threatened for kidnapping him and his driver Ali Muhammad who went outside factory. Accused Hameed stopped him and threatened the driver that if his boss has not given amount he will not allow to run the vehicle in the way of Goth. Hence, this FIR.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned APG and have gone through the case file.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that applicant/accused was supplying material of making block and cement etc and during such job with complainant dispute arose between them who on account of such enmity involved the applicant/accused in this crime. He further argued that name of any person is not mentioned in the FIR who were present when applicant/accused entered in the factory of complainant. He further argued that no specific role has been assigned to the accused in the alleged crime and complainant did not lodge any report.
5. Learned APG, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused on the ground that name of the accused transpires in the contents of FIR and prosecution witnesses have implicated him in the alleged commission of crime. He pointed out that PWs namely Arshad, Jumma, Ali Muhammad, Samiullah and Shaheen have implicated the accused in the alleged commission of crime as alleged against him. He further contended that incidents of extortion of money have become common and such crimes to be curbed with iron hands. He further contended that ample evidence is available on record against the accused to connect him in the alleged commission of crime.
6. I have given my anxious thought to the contentions raised at bar and have perused the police file. From perusal of record, it appears that the alleged incident took place on 8.5.2011 and the same was reported on the same day without any delay. The applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific allegation that on the day and time of the incident he came inside the factory of the complainant and demanded Bhatta in presence of P.Ws namely Arshad, Jumma, Ali Muhammad, Samiullah and Shaheen. These P.Ws in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.0 have implicated the applicant/accused in the commission of offence. These P.Ws appears to no inimical terms with the applicant, therefore, their statement at this stage of the case cannot be ignored.
Record further reveals that this applicant/accused is fugitive from law since last two years and subsequently he was arrested in this case on 8.10.2013. His absconsion in presence of evidence available on record support the prosecution case. As per record, the applicant is involved in a case of extortion of money and this type of crime is now-a-days increasing. Besides the evidence under which the present applicant is involved falls within the prohibitory section of 497 Cr.P.C, therefore, at this stage the applicant has failed to make out a case of bail.
7. In view of the reasons enumerated above, I am of the considered view that the applicant has failed to make out a case for bail, accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. However, the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and only for disposal of this bail application.
8. Since the applicant is in jail for the last few months, therefore, I direct the Trial Court to examine the material witnesses i,e, complainant and mashir of the case within two months from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter the applicant will be at liberty to move fresh bail application before the learned Trial Court, who will decide the same in accordance with law. Bail after arrest refused.