KHALID MAHMOOD Versus State
This matter arises from a bail application filed by Khalid Mahmood seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 392, 411, and 204 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the hijacking of a truck and robbery. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was not named in the initial first information report, though later nominated in a supplementary statement, and that the stolen truck was allegedly recovered from him while he has been detained without commencement of trial. The court held that the petitioner made out a case for bail considering the lack of previous conviction, delayed trial, and circumstances of his arrest and recovery. The court accepted the application and granted post-arrest bail subject to surety bonds.
- Whether an accused not named in the initial F.I.R. but nominated in a supplementary statement is entitled to bail?
- Does the recovery of a stolen vehicle from the accused during investigation preclude the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether prolonged incarceration without commencement of trial warrants the grant of bail in robbery cases?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 204, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Rafique, complainant stated before police on 13-3-2003 that he owned Truck No.1366-CHA. He further stated that on 12-3-2003 at about 8-30 a.m. he was 'present at 'Adda' Jauharabad when a person hired his truck for Chak No.23 Mandianwala. He along with his conductor" Muhammad Sher reached said village and loaded some articles and proceeded towards Jauharabad but when they reached in the area of village Gulapur three unknown persons while armed with different weapons caught hold of them, snatched truck and Rs.5,250 from them and took away the same. On his statement present case was registered on 13-3-2003. The petitioner was arrested on 31-3-2003 and according to prosecution case, during investigation truck . was recovered from him and his co accused. Hence this bail application.
2. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits' that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that petitioner is not named in F.I.R. but no identification was conducted after his arrest, therefore, case of petitioner is that of further inquiry. He contended that petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 31-3-2003 but trial has not commenced so far. He further contended that according to prosecution story only Riaz co-accused hired truck from complainant. He has argued that no offence under section 392, P.P.C. is made out and at the most offence under section All, P.P.C. is applicable and that petitioner is not previous convict, therefore, he deserves concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the grounds that truck was recovered from petitioner and his co-accused on 31-3-2003 and that on 20-3-2003 complainant made supplementary statement and nominated the petitioner and his co accused as culprits.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned' counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above, according to prosecution case four persons snatched truck from the complainant on 12-3-2003. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Learned' counsel for the State submits that on 20-3-2003, complainant made supplementary statement and nominated the petitioner and that" according to recovery memo. dated 31-3-2003 truck was recovered from petitioner, Muhammad Riaz and Nasar Muhammad Shamaoon Khan, S.-I., who is, present in Court states that petitioner was arrested on 31-3-2003 and trial has not commenced so far and that petitioner is not previous convict. As mentioned above, petitioner is not named in F.I.R. but complainant nominated him in his supplementary statement on 20-3-2003. During investigation truck was recovered from petitioner and has co-accused mentioned above. He is not previous convict. The petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 31-3-2003 but trial has not commenced so far. In these' circumstances without going into merit of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail to petitioner. As such application brought by petitioner is accepted and he is allowed bail (in case F.I.R. No.42 of 2003 under sections 392, 411 and 204, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Midh Ranjha District Sargodha), subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.80,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of' trial Court.
B.B.T./K-83/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD MADNI vs THE STATE 2010 MLD 1768