SARFRAZ AHMAD Versus STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where he was not directly named in the main dacoity FIR, but 50 bags of stolen cotton yarn out of the stolen consignment were recovered from his possession at his instance. The petitioner argued that there was no material on record to demonstrate that he had prior knowledge of the dacoity. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing bail, holding that it was not a fit case for interference given the magnitude of the recovery linked to the stolen property. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing bail when a large quantity of stolen property from a dacoity is recovered from the accused?
- Whether an accused charged under Section 412 PPC is entitled to bail solely on the ground that he was not named in the initial dacoity case?
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑ This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Sarfraz Ahmad petitioner. He had been challaned with two others under section 412 PPC arising out of a main dacoity case registered against additional accused persons at Police Station Mochiwala district Jhang on 29 January, 1987.
2. The brief facts are that a truck was proceeding from Multan to Faisalabad loaded with 185 bags of cotton yarn. The truck was stopped by 7/8 dacoits who kidnapped the driver (Shah Nawaz) and second driver (Mohammad Ismail). However Mohammad Ramzan conductor managed to escape. The truck was taken by the dacoits to Qasur. Thereafter it was found that Shah Nawaz had been murdered whereas Mohammad Ismail had also managed to escape. The stolen property namely bags of cotton yarn were recovered from a number of persons including the present petitioner.
3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he (Sarfraz Ahmad petitioner) had not been implicated in the main dacoity case nor he had any knowledge of the same. The allegation against him was only that stolen property had been recovered from his possession at his instance. This alleged recovery was 50 bags of stolen cotton yarn. The main arguments of the learned counsel was that there was nothing on the record to indicate that the petitioner had any knowledge of the dacoity. This argument has already been attended to by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court Lahore who dismissed the application for bail of the petitioner vide his order dated 1st June 1987. We have heard the learned counsel at some length but in our view it is not a fit case for interference in the exercise of the discretion of the learned Single Judge in refusing bail to the petitioner. In that view of the matter this petition is dismissed.
4. M.I. /S‑68/S Petition dismissed.