GHULAM SHABBIR Versus State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Ghulam Shabbir, who is charged in Crime No. 113 of 2004 at Police Station Rukkan for offences under sections 380, 457, and 337-H(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, involving the theft of cattle. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that a co-accused had been granted bail and the investigation was complete with the recovery of the stolen property. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the applicant was specifically nominated in the First Information Report, the stolen property was recovered directly from his residence in the presence of witnesses, and the complainant identified him. The Court established the principle that where there is specific incriminating evidence, such as the recovery of stolen property from the accused's possession and clear identification by the complainant, the mere fact that a co-accused has been granted bail does not automatically entitle the applicant to the same relief.
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused automatically entitle another accused to bail?
- Is the recovery of stolen property from an accused's residence sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Does a specific nomination in the First Information Report combined with the recovery of stolen property constitute sufficient grounds to refuse post-arrest bail?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 14, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.- --The applicant is involved in Crime No.113 of 2004, Police Station Rukkan, registered under sections 380, 457, 337-H(ii), P.P.C. read with section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, on the complaint of Abdul Rehman for committing theft of cows.
2. In support of bail application learned counsel contends that one of the co-accused namely Hussain has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge and that since the case has been challaned and the recovery of stolen property has been made, the person of the accused not needed any more. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail.
3. Learned State Counsel opposes the grant of bail contending that the recovery was effected from applicant Ghulam Shabbir and that he was identified by the complainant.
4. The submissions put forward have been considered and the material placed on the record has been perused.
5. The applicant is nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role. According to the contents of the F.I.R. when the present applicant refused to return the stolen cattle to the complainant, he lodged the F.I.R. after waiting for a period of 14 days. The stolen cows were recorded from the house of the applicant in presence of private persons who acted as Mashirs. No case for bail is thus, made out. The application for bail is accordingly dismissed.
6. H.B.T./K-17/K ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.
Cited by 1 case
- IMAM ALI vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 1975