MUHAMMAD REHAN vs The STATE
This matter concerns two bail applications filed by Muhammad Rehan and Irshad Ahmed, who were accused in an FIR involving robbery under sections 392, 397, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the lack of identification proceedings and the nature of the recovered property. The Court held that the applicant Rehan was merely seen outside the house, and no property was recovered from him. Regarding Irshad Ahmed, the Court noted the absence of an identification test for an accused not named in the FIR, and that the recovered property did not match the items listed in the FIR. Furthermore, the Court held that even if the recovery were valid, the offense would likely fall under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a lesser sentence and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail to both applicants.
- Does the recovery of property not mentioned in the FIR, or the recovery of property punishable under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an identification test mandatory for an accused who is not named in the FIR and was previously unknown to the prosecution witnesses?
- Can bail be granted when the sole allegation against an accused is presence at the scene of the crime without evidence of participation or possession of robbed property?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' FAROOQ ALI CHANNA , J.---Applicants Muhammad Rehan and Irshad Ahmed have filed above mentioned two bail applications for their release on bail in F.I.R. No, 568/2013, Police Station Surjani Town, under sections 392, 397, 34 P.P.C. Lodged by complainant Bilal Hashmi that on 12-10-2013 at 3-00 p.m. Two unknown persons entered his house and on gun point robbed his gold ornaments, cash Rs,15,000, shaving- machine and three mobile phones China made Nokia company and ran away after locking them in the room of the house. After sometime his brother Ibrahim came there, freed them and informed that he has seen their neighbour Rehan 'standing outside the house.
2. ' During investigation, the Investigator arrested both the aforesaid applicants, on the pointation of applicant Irshad Ahmed recovered some robbed articles, after completing investigation the 1.0.
3. Submitted challan.
4. ' The bail applications moved by the applicants before the trial Court were dismissed.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicants have contended that the case is false and fabricated, both the applicants are innocent, the complainant has also sworn affidavit exonerating both the applicants.
6. On merits learned counsel have contended that no identification test of the applicants was held nor the property allegedly recovered on the pointation of applicant Irshad Ahmed was shown as robbed property in F.I.R., as such prima facie the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.
7. ' Learned D.P.G. Has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and has contended that applicant Rehan is nominated in F.I.R., P.W. Ibrahim who came to the place of incident soon after the wardat had seen the applicant Rehan standing outside the house, the P.Ws. Also identified both the applicants at Police Station, the robbed property was recovered on the pointation of Irshad Ahmed, which is sufficient evidence to connect the applicants in commission of this offence against society. The applicants have alleged no enmity against the complainant or the P.Ws. Compelling them to give false statement against the applicants, as such no case of bail is made out, she emphasized that bail application may be dismissed.
8. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. The sole allegation against the applicant Rehan is that he was seen standing outside the house. Per Prosecution neither he had entered the house of complainant nor was robbed property recovered from his possession or on his pointation. As far the case against Irshad Ahmed is concerned, he was not named in F.I.R. Nor he was known to the prosecution witnesses prior to the incident, in these circumstances it was obligatory to put the applicant on identification test through Prosecution witnesses, the Investigating Officer has failed to discharge his above obligatory responsibility. Per Prosecution, the investigating officer on the pointation of applicant Irshad Ahmed recovered laptop, mobile phone of LG company and shaving machine, such property except shaving machine was not shown in F.I.R. To have been robbed of even mere recovery of some robbed property would not amount to offence of robbery, such offence would fall under section 411 P.P.C.punishable to the extent of three years, it does not fall within the ambit of prollibition clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Accordingly I grant the bail to both the applicants subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs, 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- Sohail Khattak vs The State 2023 MLD 1924
- MUHAMMAD AHSAN Versus State 2018 YLRN 82