JAVAID AKHTAR Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Javaid Akhtar, in connection with F.I.R. No. 552 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhang, for offences including dacoity and house trespass. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being specifically nominated in the F.I.R. and having active participation attributed to him. The Court observed that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R., eyewitnesses consistently implicated him, and he admitted his presence at the scene in his bail application to the Sessions Court, citing a business dispute. Furthermore, the recovery of money from the petitioner and his alleged involvement in other criminal cases, including murder and illicit arms possession, indicated a propensity for violence. The Court held that reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner was involved in the alleged offences, which fell under the prohibitory clause of the bail statute. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, affirming that the petitioner's conduct and the evidence against him precluded the grant of relief.
- Does an admission of presence at the scene of an alleged crime in a bail application constitute a relevant factor for the court to consider?
- Can a history of involvement in other criminal cases, such as murder, influence the court's decision on granting bail in a current case?
- Does an offence under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Javaid Akhtar petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.552 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhang, on 12-11-2002 for offences under sections 395/452/337-F(i)/ 337-F(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. During the investigation section 411, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that although the F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a slight delay yet the reason for that delay had been explained in the F.I.R. itself. The petitioner had been specifically nominated in the F.I.R. as one of the perpetrators of the alleged offences and in the F.I.R. an active participation in the alleged incident had been attributed to the petitioner. It is not disputed that the eyewitnesses mentioned in the F.I.R., including the injured complainant have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioner in the alleged offences. It is pertinent to mention here that tile petitioner happens to be a brother-in-law (Ham Zulf) of the complainant and no reason has been brought out on the record. as to why the complainant would falsely implicate the petitioner in a case of this nature In his application for bail before the Court of Session, Jhang the petitioner had mentioned in paragraph No.8 thereof that he was present ac the spot at the .relevant time while he was demanding an amount from the complainant which amount was due from the complainant in connection with a business dispute between the petitioner and the complainant. Unfortunately it is not unlikely or unusual for people in this part of the world to take law in their own hands for extracting money from their rival disputants through use of force. During the investigation a sum of Rs.1,00,000 had been recovered from the- petitioner's possession. An offence under section 395, P.P.C. attracts the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. After having become convinced of the guilt of the petitioner the local police has already submitted a challan against him in this case. According to the order. dated 23-1-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang the petitioner is also involved in a murder case as well as a case for possession of illicit arms. It, thus, appears that the petitioner may have a propensity to get his way through use of force rather than settling his disputes through peaceful and amicable means.
3. For what has been discussed above prima facie reasonable grounds do exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences and this petition, is, therefore, dismissed.
H.B.T./J-104/L Bail application dismissed.