SULEMAN Versus State
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the accused Suleman, who was apprehended at the spot following an alleged armed robbery and firing incident where a mobile phone was snatched. The core legal question is whether the applicant/accused is entitled to post-arrest bail given his apprehension at the scene and recovery of a weapon. The court held that no case for the grant of bail was made out considering the gravity of street crimes and direct apprehension at the spot, and consequently dismissed the bail application while directing the trial court to expedite recording evidence of key prosecution witnesses. The key principle laid down is that persons involved in violent street crimes, particularly where apprehended at the spot with weapons, should be dealt with strictly and are generally not entitled to post-arrest bail at the early stages.
- Whether an accused apprehended at the spot during an alleged armed robbery is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the non-recovery of the stolen property from the arrested accused warrant the grant of bail when a weapon is recovered?
- Can the High Court direct the trial court to conclude recording specific witness testimonies within a fixed timeframe upon refusing bail?
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J .--- Granted.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20-5-2008, complainant Sheheryar Khan had lodged report on the basis of statement recorded under section 154, Cr.P'.C. wherein he had stated that two young persons on motorcycle had stopped him and one of them on the point of pistol had snatched his mobile phone make Samsung. He raised commotion whereupon the accused fired upon him, but he was luckily saved. Upon hearing report of firing police mobile also reached at the spot and had apprehended one of the robbers on the spot, who had disclosed his name as Suleman, while the name of the accused, who ran away from the spot was disclosed as Nadir by the apprehended accused. One Pistol along with cartridge was recovered from the apprehended accused. However, mobile phone was not recovered from him, as the same was allegedly taken away by the accused who had made his escape good from the place of incident after committing robbery.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention towards the memo. of arrest in which it is mentioned that two persons were grappling amongst themselves and there is no mention of third person. He has further stated that provision under section 103, Cr.P.C. have not been complied with.
3. Mr. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, learned Additional Prosecutor-General has stated that the police party had come upon hearing the report of firing and by that time one accused had already run away on his motorcycle along with the mobile phone. The other accused Suleman was trying to run away, but complainant was grappling with him in order to apprehend him. He has explained that this is how the police has seen two persons i.e. one was complainant and the other was present accused. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General has strongly opposed the bail application.
4. I have repeatedly observed in my orders passed in the cases pertaining to the street crimes that these people for a very petty amount take the lives of innocent persons upon resistance. Such types of accused are to be dealt with iron hands by police as well as by the Court. The present case is one of the wonderful case in which the accused was apprehended on the spot, otherwise in such cases apprehension of accused is very difficult.
5. However, at this stage I will refrain from making any observation regarding the merits of the case because it may prejudice the case of either party at trial.
6. From the facts disclosed above no case for grant of bail is made out, I, therefore, reject this bail application. However, I direct the trial Court to record the evidence of complainant as well as P.W. Head Constable Anwar Sher having Buckle No.1072 within two months of receipt of this order. Thereafter the applicant will be at liberty to repeat the bail application in the trial Court if so advised.
7. Observations made by me above are tentative in nature and the trial Court should not be influenced by it. The trial Court should decide the case on merits on the basis of evidence, which comes on record.
8. Bail Application No.788 of 2008 is disposed of.
9. H.B.T./S-61/K Bail refused.