ABDUL RASHEED Alias SHEEDA vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the High Court in a criminal case involving dacoity and recovery of stolen property. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when stolen property, being the subject-matter of dacoity, was allegedly recovered from him, and notwithstanding that the offence is punishable under Tazir rather than as a Hudood offence due to the lack of required male witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error in refusing bail given the recovery of the stolen property from the petitioner in connection with the dacoity. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that recovery of stolen property in such serious offences ordinarily disentitles an accused to bail at this stage.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail in a dacoity case where stolen property is allegedly recovered from him?
- Whether an offence punishable under Tazir with the same punishment as prescribed under section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code warrants bail when recovery is established?
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--Despite the fact that it is not a Hudood offence as no to male witnesses are available to testify on the, main occurrence nonetheless it is a case of Tazir punishable with the same punishment as prescribed under section 412, P.P.C., that is,imprisonment for life or 10 years.
2. The stolen property which was the subject-matter of dacoity was allegedly recovered from this petitioner, and, in the circumstances, we do not find any error in the judgment of the High Court if it has not allowed bail.
3. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.