Syed Muhammad Junaid vs NOT
This matter concerns a bail after arrest application filed by the accused, Syed Muhammad Junaid, in connection with a criminal case registered under Sections 385, 387, 506, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to the concession of bail after arrest, given the allegations of extortion and the recovery of incriminating materials, including documents linked to a proscribed organization. The court held that there were reasonable grounds to connect the accused to the commission of the offence, noting that the recovery of specific items and the evidence collected during the investigation created a prima facie case against him. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application. The key principle laid down is that at the stage of deciding a bail application, the court must perform only a tentative assessment of the evidence rather than an elaborate sifting or detailed analysis, and if reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused to the crime, bail should be refused.
- Is an elaborate sifting of evidence required at the stage of deciding a bail application?
- Does the recovery of incriminating documents and connection to a proscribed organization constitute reasonable grounds to deny bail?
- Should a court conduct a tentative assessment of evidence when considering a bail application?
- Section 385, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 387, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 386, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.--- Applicant/accused Syed Muhammad Junaid son of S. M. Noman Ghani, seeks bail after arrest in Crime No.438/2013 registered on 10.09.2013 under Section 385/387/506/34 PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at P.S. Taimuria.
2. We have heard Mr. Nasir Ahmed, counsel for appellant as well as Mr. Khadim Hussain, D.P.G. and carefully perused the record with their assistance. Mr. Khadim Hussain learned DPG opposed the bail application on the ground that it is an offence of extortion of money; documents pertaining to Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan have been recovered from his possession, which disentitles him for grant of bail.
3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that complainant runs a school, in the name of "The Educators". An envelope was dropped by a motorcyclist at reception of School, whereby Rs.5,000,000/- was demanded as bhatta by Tehreek-e-Taliban, to be paid within 24 hours and in case of nonpayment, threat of dire consequences as well as murder of students was made. Mobile No.0311-2899155 was written in the letter. Complainant became terrorized. He reached home at 11:30 a.m., there was another envelope, addressed to him allegedly by Hakeemullah Mehsood of Tehreek-e-Taliban, one 30 bore live bullet was also found in the envelop and demand of Rs.5,000,000/- as bhatta was made. He brought the same to police station and lodged such F.I.R. against accused of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan.
4. After usual investigation, challan was submitted against co-accused under Sections 386/34 PPC read with section 7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Applicant/accused moved bail application before learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.II, Karachi, same was rejected vide order dated 22.03.2014.
5. Thereafter, applicant moved the instant bail application.
6. Present applicant/accused was arrested along with co-accused Qadir Muhammad, from whom SIM # 0311-2899155, which was written on the letter addressed to the complainant, was recovered.
7. Documents pertaining to Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan Bin Ladin were recovered from present applicant Muhammad Junaid. He admitted his involvement in the instant crime, as such, he was formally arrested. Alleged SIM was used by co-accused in the instant crime, threats of dire consequences were issued to the complainant and demand of bhatta as stated above was made from him. Prima facie, there appear to be reasonable grounds to connect the accused Muhammad Junaid in commission of offence. During investigation, sufficient evidence has been collected against him to disentitle him for concession of bail. It is settled principle of law that at the time of deciding the bail application only tentative assessment of the same is to be made.
8. Reliance can be placed upon the case of Mrs. Riaz Qayyum Vs. The State (2004 SCM R 1889) which is reproduced as under:- "It is settled principle of law that an elaborate sifting of evidence cannot be made at the time of deciding bail application but only tentative assessment of the same is to be made. Thus, pirma facie there appears to be a reasonable ground disentitling the petitioner's husband, namely, Khalifa Abdul Qayyum, to the concession of bail."
9. For the above stated reasons, prima facie there are reasonable grounds to connect the applicant/accused Muhammad Junaid in the commission of offence. Consequently, application for bail after arrest moved on behalf of accused Muhammad Junaid is dismissed, with directions to the trial Court to conclude the trial, expeditiously.
10. Needless to mention here that observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and the trial court would not be influenced at the time of deciding the case on merits.