NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus ZAINAB
ORDER
1. Applicant Muhammad Nadeem, son of Amiruddin, is detained in F.I.R. Crime No.88/1993 registered at Police Station. Digri for having committed an offence under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. Allegation against the applicant is that on 22-9-1992 at about 4 a.m. in the night he alongwith three others came to the house of the complainant Muhammad Bux situated in Makrani Para, Digri Town and knocked his door. The complainant opened thr door of his house and saw one white colour car in which one person was sitting while three other persons with muffled faces were standing outside his door duly armed with fire-arms. They forcibly entered the house of the complainant and asked him to hand over cash and golden ornaments. When the complainant refused to do so, they gave him a beating with the butts of their weapons. The accused were having a broad sticking tape which they placed over the mouth of the complainant and his wife and also tied their hands with rope. The accused persons again demanded the valuables from the complainant who again refused to yield to their demands. The three accused then caught hold of the complainant's daughter and threatened to kill her if their demand was not met. They also got removed the golden ornaments worn by the complainant's wife, and then they started grappling with the accused, the complainant's daughter also raised cries on account of which the neighbours namely Karim, Ismail and others came running. At that time when the accused persons were trying to escape, the neighbours were able to catch hold of one of the culprits who disclosed his name to be Muhammad Nadeem, the present applicant. Thereafter the complainant lodged the report in which he mentioned that the accused persons have forcibly taken cash and also other golden ornaments from his house. The applicant was arrested by the police after the registration of the case and the matter is under investigation.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for applicant and also Mr. Abdul Latif Memon, AA.-G. for State. The latter while opposing this bail application has also pointed out that the complainant had suffered three injuries on his person at the hands of the accused.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Jawed Chaudhry submitted that neither the applicant was armed with any weapon nor any incriminating article was recovered from his possession. He further submitted that as required by section 7 of the Haraba Ordinance, two independent witnesses other than the complainant are not available in this case and therefore, no offence under section 17(3) of the Ordinance was made out. He further submitted that the case at the most will be of trespass and nothing beyond that. He has also referred to the factual position that it was not possible for the complainant and his wife to grapple with the accused as they were already tied by means of rope. In these circumstances he has prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
5. I have carefully considered the points raised by the learned counsel and I have also gone through the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the complainant party and the present applicant were not known to each other either by name or by face and therefore, there was no reason for the complainant party to falsely implicate the present applicant. It is also an admitted position that the present applicant was arrested at the spot immediately after the incident when he was trying to escape. The complainant has also given the details of the property which have been robbed by the accused persons. Under section 15 of the Ordinance, the offence of Haraba is made out when two or more persons have conjointly committed the offence. The applicant was not all alone at the time of commission of the offence, but there were three other co-accused who were armed with fire-arms. This being the position, the offence of robbery as contemplated by section 392, P.P.C. is clearly made out which is punishable with 14 years if the offence is committed at night time. In addition, an offence under section 457, P.P.C. is also made out which is also punishable with 14 years and, therefore, the bar contained under section 497(1), Cr.P.C. is fully attracted in this case.
6. The offences of this nature have become so rampant that the Court cannot be oblivious of it and, therefore, has to take juridical notice of the prevailing conditions. As such, in cases of this nature the culprits do not deserve any leniency. In the circumstances, I do not find any merits in this bail I application and the same is accordingly dismissed.
7. N.H.Q./M-1885/K ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.