BAHAR and another Versus THE STATE
This is a criminal petition filed before the Peshawar High Court seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 381-A, 337-J, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the accused-petitioners were entitled to bail given the delayed identification in the supplementary statements and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements, versus the recovery of the stolen vehicle and the complainant's identity documents from their possession on the day of the occurrence. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail, as a prima facie case existed connecting them to the crime through strong incriminating recoveries, including the snatched car and personal documents of the complainant, alongside their involvement in a contemporaneous criminal case. The key principle laid down is that where accused persons are directly linked to an offense through prompt recovery of stolen property and victim documents, and where a prima facie case is established, the concession of bail will be denied even if initial naming in the F.I.R. was absent.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused are connected to the crime through the recovery of stolen property and victim identification documents?
- Does the absence of the accused's name in the initial F.I.R. automatically make it a case of further inquiry when a subsequent statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. implicates them?
- Are offences under Section 381-A of the Pakistan Penal Code invariably subject to the grant of bail when falling outside the statutory prohibitory clause?
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-J, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
Having been involved in case vide F.I. R. No.1043 dated 26‑12‑2004 at Police Station Daggar under sections 381‑A/337‑J/34, P.P.C., accused‑petitioners applied for their release on bail in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate but their application was dismissed vide order, dated 19‑1‑2005. Thereafter, they applied for their release on bail in the Court of learned Sessions Judge/ Zilla Qazi , Buner at Daggar but their application was rejected vide order, dated 11‑2‑2005. Now they have moved this Court for their release on bail.
2. Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi , Advocate the learned counsel representing the accused‑petitioners argued that there was a delay of 3 hours in lodging the report. The F.I.R. was lodged after due deliberations and consultations in which none was charged by the complainant.
3. It was further argued that although statement of the complainant under section 164, Cr.P.C . was recorded on 7‑1‑2005 but the same was not reliable as it had been recorded after 13 days of occurrence and during this period the complainant was briefed about the names, etc., of the petitioners by the local police. Reliance is placed on 2003 SCMR 426.
4. It was also argued that in the statement recorded on 7‑1‑2005 neither the features of the accused nor their description/identification was given by the complainant.
5. It was further argued that provisions of section 337‑J, P.P.C. were not applicable in the case in hand because no poison whatsoever was used by the petitioners. Likewise the punishment provided under section 381‑A, P.P.C. is 7 years and the case of the petitioners do not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P . C.
6. It was also argued that it was a clear‑cut case of further inquiry. Bahar accused‑petitioner was not given role of snatching and it is yet to be determined after recording evidence as to whether the accused petitioners were involved in the alleged occurrence or not. Reliance is placed on 2003 PCr.LJ 544.
7. On the other hand Nadir Khan complainant present in Courts stated at the bar that being a poor person he cannot engage a counsel and the learned State Counsel will argue the case on his behalf.
8. Mr. Akhtar Naveed , learned Deputy Advocate‑General representing the State opposed the grant of bail and argued that on the play of occurrence when the case was registered against the petitioners, the officials of Ghaligai Police Station arrested the accused petitioners and from their possession not only two vehicle, including the car of the complainant were recovered but the identity cares and driving licence of the complainant were also recovered from their possession. There was a F.I.R. No.767 under sections 186/353/427 P.P.C. and 13, A. O.
9. It was further argued that the supplementary statement of tile complainant was recorded on 28‑12‑2004 and statement under section 164, Cr.P.C . on 7‑1‑2005 whereby he charged the accused‑petitioners for the commission of the offence. Since prima facie case exists against the accused‑petitioners, therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail. Reliance is placed on PLD 1997 SC 545.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. I am not inclined to enlarge the accused‑petitioners on bail. Firstly; because there is a prima facie case connecting them with the commission of offence. No doubt they were not charged by name in the F.I.R. but it was on 28‑12‑2004 supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded by the Investigating Officer whereafter his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C . was also recorded on 7‑1‑2005 a wherein he charged the accused‑petitioners for commission of offence. Secondly; the snatched vehicle was recovered from the possession of the accused‑petitioners on the day of occurrence by officials of Police Station Ghaligai , Swat and another vehicle of grey colour was also recovered along with unlicensed pistol and F.I.R. No.767 was registered against them on 26‑12‑2004 under sections 186/353/427, P.P.C. and 13. A.O. which shows that the accused‑petitioners were involved in another case too. Thirdly; the identity card and driving licence of the complainant were also recovered from the possession of the accused petitioners along with vehicle (as mentioned above) which prima facie connect them with the commission of offence.
12. Snatching cars by using various methods has become fashion of the day which has made the life and property of common citizens insecure. The accused‑petitioners have been involved in an heinous fence concerning the society large. They, therefore, do not deserve the concession of bail. Resultantly, their bail application is dismissed.
H.B.T.367/P Application dismissed.