MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus THE STATE

ORDER

The petitioner alongwith others was arraigned for an offence under section 392/411, P.P.C. read with section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 as they hired a taxi from the complainant/driver. They took him at a deserted place and deprived him of the Taxi Car and cash of Rs.157 and his National Identity Card. Thereafter they sped away with the taxi leaving behind the complainant. They were, however, intercepted by the police and on getting suspicious they were taken into custody. In the meantime the complainant saw the police party alongwith the petitioner and his co-accused, He thereupon informed the police that the petitioner and his co-accused had deprived him of the Taxi Car and other articles as stated above, while all of them were allegedly armed.

2. The petitioner applied for bail, which was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi vide the impugned order.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. is silent about the description of the physical features of the petitioner and his co-accused nor any identification parade was held so as to link the petitioner and his co-accused with occurrence; that the petitioner and his accomplices were already in police custody when the police party came into contract with the complainant and that the identification of the petitioner alongwith other co -accused was not good in the eyes of law in that situation.

4. Lastly it was contended that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and that he is behind the Bars since his arrest in June, 1997. It was contended that complainant is the sole witness of the occurrence and as such the requirement of section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 have not been complied with and as such that provision of law, is not available to the prosecution to make out a case of Haraba. Hence it was prayed that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

5. The learned counsel for the State contended that although the description of the petitioner or his co-accused was not given in the F.I.R., but keeping in view night time it was not possible for a taxi Driver to minutely note the physical features of the petitioner or his accomplices. However, within half an hour the petitioner alongwith co-accused was taken into custody by the police while they were travelling in the Taxi Car, which they had snatched from the complainant and instantaneously they were identified by the complainant, therefore, there was no need of any separate identification parade. All the offenders were caught alongwith weapons of offence and the booty thereby linking them with the occurrence.

6. Lastly the learned counsel for the State contended that according to the police record, offence under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 has already been dropped vide entry at Serial No.2 of the case diary dated 12-10-1997, but the offence under section 392, P.P.C, is punishable up to 14 years' R.I. and as such the petitioner is not entitled to bail as a matter of routine.

7. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that although minute details of the features of the petitioner was not given in the F.I.R. by the complainant, but that was not practicable on account of night time particularly when the offenders were travelling in a Taxi Car hired by them. They were however, identified by the complainant when they were taken into custody by the police upon suspicion alongwith Taxi Car and other articles of the complainant. As such the petitioner prima facie is liable for offence under section 392/411, P.P.C. as he acted alongwith co-accused while armed with a pistol to deprive the complainant of his aforesaid belongings. It was a night time robbery committed in the garb of passengers while hiring a taxi car from the complainant, but deprived him of his belongings on pistol point. There is no extenuating ground so as to admit the petitioner to bail at this stage. This bail petition is; accordingly dismissed.

H.B.T./M-575/L Bail petition dismissed.