MUHAMMAD IMRAN Versus THE STATE
This is a bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Imran, who is facing trial for an offence under Section 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident of robbery at a hospital. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of his apprehension. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, noting that he was apprehended at the spot by members of the public during a daytime incident, and his name was promptly recorded in the First Information Report. Furthermore, the court observed that no enmity was alleged against the complainant or witnesses, and sufficient ocular evidence existed to prima facie establish the applicant's involvement. The court emphasized that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the case did not warrant further inquiry at this stage. Consequently, the bail application was declined.
- Does the apprehension of an accused at the crime scene by the public constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to deny bail?
- Does an offence under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail appropriate when the accused is named in a promptly lodged FIR and there is no alleged enmity against the witnesses?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Accused is facing trial for an offence under section 392/34 P.P.C. of Police Station Nazimabad. On 2‑6‑2003, the report was lodged on the basis of statement of Dr. Hassan recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. wherein it is stated that the complainant is Managing Director of Tuba Hospital, Kausar.Niazi Colony, Block "H" North Nazimabad Karachi. He was present in his house situated at Gulshan‑e‑Iqbal, Karachi where he received telephonic message from the owner of hospital that dacoity has taken place in the hospital and one of the culprit was apprehended on the spot. On this information complainant reached at hospital where he was apprised that at 3‑00 p.m three bandits entered hospital and by show of weapons committed robbery and thereby removed Rs.5,476 from the drawer. After the commission of robbery, the culprits tried‑to run away but the people of vicinity apprehended the present applicant who disclosed his name as Muhammad Imran. Two of 'his companions fled from the scene. The accused was taken to Police Post Hyderi, where statement of Dr. Hassan was recorded which was subsequently entered in 154, Cr.P.C. Book at‑police station. The accused was sent up to stand trial.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that nothing incriminating has been recovered from him. He states that lie had gone to that Mohalla with his personal work and later on this Drama was prepared by the complainant and Mohalla people and captured him. He has been falsely implicated. Reliance has been placed upon the cases Muhammad Sharif v. State and others 1999 MLD 692., Amjad Hussain v. State 1999 MLD 438 and Muhammad Asif Mumtaz v.. State 1999 PCr.LJ 283.
3. Mrs. Shamim Hashmi, learned counsel appearing for the State, has opposed the bail plea of applicant.
4. The record shows that the name of applicant figures in the F.I.R. which was promptly lodged. He was apprehended at the spot by the Mohallah people. It is day time incident. No enmity has been alleged against the ‑complainant or other witnesses. The offence of dacoity/ robbery is covered by prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. This is fresh case and no prosecution witness has been examined. Sufficient ocular evidence is available on record to prima facie show the involvement of applicant in the commission of crime or robbery. Case of applicant does not come under the scope of further enquiry. Bail is declined
5. N.H.Q./M‑574/K Bail refused.