KHAN AFSAR Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, who was charged with offences under sections 392, 395, 400, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an armed robbery at a currency exchange in Islamabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being identified in an identification parade and having incriminating recoveries, including cash and a vehicle, linked to him. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for bail. The court reasoned that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the evidence is permissible, and deeper appreciation of evidence is prohibited. Given that the petitioner was identified by the complainant, incriminating recoveries were made, and the offences fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court determined there was sufficient material to connect the accused to the crime. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed.
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permitted at the bail stage?
- Does the recovery of stolen property and identification of the accused constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail for offences falling under the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a bail petition be granted when the accused is implicated in offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 400, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J .---The petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 376 dated 7-9-2006 for offences under sections 392/395/400/412 PPC Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad.
2. Brief facts for disposal of this petition are that on 7-9-2006 at 12-30 noon four persons while armed with fire arm weapons entered into the office of the complainant with the name and style of Nobel Currency Exchange (International) Blue Area, Islamabad and snatched away cash Rs.20,00,000 from the staff on gun point.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he was not nominated in the F.I.R. and fake recovery has been planted upon the petitioner. He further submitted that although identification parade has been held in this case yet statements of both the eye-witnesses are inconsistent with each other which makes the case of petitioner that of further inquiry. Further submitted that petitioner is behind the bars for the last two years but there is no progress in the trial so far. He further submitted that petitioner is a government employee who is only bread winner of the family and his confinement is creating a great hardship for the family.
4. On the other hand learned Federal. Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this bail petition and submitted that petitioner was identified by the complainant during the identification parade which was held according to law. Recovery of Rs.50,000 has been effected from the petitioner and vehicle No.IDN/9756 which was used in the occurrence has also been recovered from the petitioner. There is sufficient material available on record which connects the petitioner with the occurrence. Further that offences fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Challan has already been submitted in the Court and charge against the petitioner has been framed.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the record.
6. Petitioner was identified by the complainant during the identification parade and recovery of Rs.50,000 has been effected from the petitioner. The car which was used in the occurrence has also been recovered from the petitioner. Only tentative assessment is to be made and deeper appreciation is not permitted under the law at bail stage. There is sufficient incriminating material available on record which connects the petitioner with the occurrence. Further that offences fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Challan has already been submitted before the Court and charge has also been framed. There is no enmity between the parties which could suggest false implication of the petition in this case.
7. Resultantly at this stage petitioner is unable to make out his case for post arrest bail, therefore, instant bail petition is hereby dismissed.
H.B.T./K-38/ISL ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refuse