ABID HUSSAIN Versus State
This is a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Abid Hussain, who is charged under Section 392 and Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for his alleged involvement in a highway robbery involving the forceful snatching of a car at gunpoint. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offence and the evidence collected during the investigation. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the First Information Report, and the investigation had established his complicity through the recovery of the stolen vehicle and the weapon used. The court emphasized that highway robbery and street crimes are serious offences that disturb the peace and tranquility of society and must be dealt with strictly. The court affirmed that where a prima facie case exists, particularly involving offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the accused is not entitled to bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when nominated in an FIR for highway robbery where recovery of the stolen property is effected at his instance?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Can the recovery of stolen property from the premises of a co-accused's relative be used to establish the complicity of the petitioner in a criminal case?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.-- -Abid Hussain petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered against him and Muhammad Shahzad on the complaint of Shahid Nadeerh vide F.I.R. No. 385 dated 13-8-2010 under section 392, P.P.C. at Police Station Yazman, District Bahawalpur. During the investigation, offence under section 411, P.P.C., has also been added to the F.I.R.
Precisely, the facts of the case are that the complainant runs a car on rent basis. On the day of occurrence; i.e. 12-8-2010 at about 3-00 p.m. he was present at Chalk No. 97/DB along with Muhammad Irshad where Muhammad Shahzad co-accused came to hire the car. Muhammad Shahzad co-accused showed his National Identity Card and hired the car from the complainant on the ground that a sick person has to be transported, from Chak No. 97/DB to Village 13 Soling and a fare was fixed as Rs.1,100. It has further been alleged in the F.I.R. that the complainant while boarding in the car proceeded towards the destination. When reached near Chak No. 97/DB, the petitioner and his co-accused took out pistols and on gun-point, Abid Hussain petitioner snatched the key of the car, whereas co-accused Muhammad Shahzad searched him and took out his travelling licence, original Identity Card, mobile telephone (Nokia) with specific number and net cash Rs. 1,500. Thereafter, alighted him forcibly from the car and they took the car towards Mithra. The complainant narrated the incident to Muhammad Naveed P.W. who was coming on the same road that (sic.) motorcycle. It has also been mentioned in the F.I.R. that telephonically complainant intimated Muhammad Irshad, owner of the vehicle, about the incident. The complainant along with other persons tried to search the car but all in vain. Consequently, the instant case has been registered against the petitioner and his co-accused.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 1-9-2010 and in his physical remand he got recovered the alleged car on 5-9-2010 and thereafter, a pistol .30 bore on 8-9-2010.
4. Learned courts below have dismissed the bail applications of the petitioner. Hence, the instant bail petition.
5. In support of this bail petition, it has been argued that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due to suspicion and there is a delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. It has further been argued that the alleged car was not hired directly by the petitioner rather it was taken by Muhammad Shahzad by displaying his Identity Card to the complainant. It has also been argued that the recovery of the alleged car has not been effected from the premises exclusively owned and possessed by the petitioner rather the same has been recovered from the house of brother-in-law of Muhammad Shahzad co-accused, whereas recovery of pistol is inconsequential in this case as it was not used. The learned counsel has also argued that the petitioner is previous non-convict and only one criminal case has been registered against him in which he has been granted bail by the court of law and that as the investigation is complete, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail.
6. Learned D.P.-G. assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed bail petition with vehemence by submitting that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. He along with his co-accused deceitfully hired the car of the complainant. Then on the way on gun point, the petitioner snatched car from the complainant and hereafter his co-accused searched and took out certain articles including cash from the pocket of the complainant and then forcibly alighted him from the car and ultimately the petitioner along with his co-accused proceeded towards Mithra on the same car. It has further been maintained that recovery has been effected on the pointing out of the petitioner from the house of brother-in-law of the co-accused Muhammad Shahzad. This fact again shows privy of the petitioner with the co-accused and his relatives. Learned DPG has lastly contended that it is a case of highway robbery and such like incidents are being increased day-by-day and the persons involved in such like cases are required to be treated with iron hands and that the offence, with which the petitioner has been charged, falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, he is not entitled for the concession of bail being connected with commission of crime.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
8. Delay in such like cases is a common phenomenon and incident of highway robbery and street crimes are being committed by the youth of the society and if such like incidents not curbed with iron hands then the peace and tranquillity of the society may be disturbed. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. He, being accomplice of the co-accused, deceitfully hired the car from Shahid Nadeem and on the way the petitioner on gun-point snatched its key and thereafter he along with his co-accused Muhammad Shahzad went away on the same car towards Mithra. During the investigation, the alleged car as well as the alleged pistol have been recovered from him and the upshot of the investigation is that he has been involved in the commission of crime. In this respect, reliance has been placed upon the case of Abdul Ghafoor and another v. The State [2000 PCr.LJ 331 (Karachi)], wherein such like incidents have been considered act of terrorism.
9. For what has been discussed above, no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
N.H.Q./A-59/L Bail refused.