MUHAMMAD RAEES Versus THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal case where the applicant, Muhammad Raees, sought post-arrest bail in connection with a robbery committed at the house of the complainant Amir Baig on 18-3-2002. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the delayed recovery of robbed articles, the absence of an identification parade, and the statutory limitations regarding offences punishable with less than ten years of imprisonment. The court held that since no identification parade was conducted and the offence relating to the possession of robbed articles does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, coupled with the statutory delay in the trial where no witnesses have been examined, the applicant makes out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that possession of robbed articles simpliciter, in the absence of an identification parade for the actual robbery and where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, along with prolonged incarceration without trial, justifies the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when no identification parade was held to connect the accused with the actual robbery?
- Does the offence of possessing robbed articles fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does prolonged incarceration without framing of charge or examination of witnesses warrant the grant of bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. On 18‑3‑2002 three bandits out of whom two had pistols, trespassed into the house of Amir Baig at about 3‑00 p.m. and made the inmates of the house hostage confining them in one room. One of the culprits kept watch over them whereas the two culprits collected valuable from the entire house. After collecting ornaments and other valuable including VCP the bandits went out bolting the room from outside and asking the inmates not to report the matter to any one.
2. On 26‑3‑2002 Amir Baig lodged the report with Korangi Police, stating therein that they will be able to identify the culprits having robbed them: He also stated further that fourth culprit was also seen standing outside the house. He had Motorcycle No.KB‑6461.
3. During investigation Syed Wamiq Hussain alias Khurram was arrested. It alleged that he gave a clue about the involvement of applicant Muhammad Raees and two others whereafter the applicant was arrested on 2‑4‑2002. He (applicant) is said to have produced one set of gold ornaments besides one ring and one locket, which were identified by the complainant at the time of recovery. Applicant's co‑accused Syed Wamiq Hussain alias Khurram was granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 21‑10‑2002 for the reason that no recovery was made from him.
4. No doubt, recovery of some of the robbed jewellery is said to have been made from applicant Muhammad Rates but that is so many days after the incident. No identification parade was held for knowing as to whether the applicant was among the culprits having committed actual robbery. In absence of that the evidence against him shows the possession of robbed articles and that offence by itself is not punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more. The embargo put of section 497, Cr.P.C. is not applicable. Moreover this applicant/accused has remained in jail for one year as reported by the learned counsel and not a single witness has been examined nor charge has been framed. He, therefore, deserves the concession of bail. Bail granted. He shall be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. H.B.T./M-13/K Bail granted.