GULSHER and others vs THE STATE
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' request for post-arrest bail pending their trial for offences under sections 399, 401, and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the ingredients of offences relating to preparation for dacoity were fulfilled based on the recovery of arms from the petitioners during odd hours, warranting the grant of bail. The Supreme Court held that the High Court and the lower forums committed no illegality or violation of legal principles in refusing bail, considering the serious nature of the offences and the circumstances of the arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed that where accused persons are apprehended at odd hours armed with deadly weapons near a forest under suspicious circumstances, a reasonable presumption regarding preparation for dacoity may be drawn at the bail stage, justifying the denial of bail.
- Whether the ingredients of offences under sections 399, 401, and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are fulfilled when accused persons are apprehended armed at odd hours?
- Does the recovery of deadly weapons from accused persons near a forest at dawn raise a reasonable presumption to attract section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the bail stage?
- When can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's order refusing post-arrest bail in heinous offences?
- Section 399, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 401, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 402, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance
ORDER
1. ADBUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dated 21-9-1987 dismissing petitioners' request for grant of bail pending their trial in a case under sections 399, 401 and 402, P.P.C. Read with section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance.
2. The offences are said to have been committed on 28-6-1987 between 0445 and 0630 hours and the crime was reported by S.H.O. Ghulam Muhammad Abro on behalf of the State. According to the S.H.O., while he was on patrolling with police party, he came across five persons, including the petitioners, standing duly armed at the border of Jhab forest. On seeing the police party, petitioners and their companions started running away, but they were chased and while the two companions of the petitioners made good the escape, the petitioners were apprehended and one gun and two revolvers with cartridges in a hag were secured from them. In support of this petition learned counsel raised the same plea that was urged before the learned Judge in the High Court, that the ingredients of the offences under sections 399, 401 and 402, P.P.C. Are not fulfilled, and the case is therefore one for further enquiry. Learned Judge in the High Court rejected this plea for the reasons which may he stated in his own words as follows: "After going through the papers, I am of the view that no case is made out for grant of bail. The five accused were seen at 4-45 a.m. In the morning standing duly armed at the border of Jhab forest and the Police party, according to the F.I.R., was on patrol at that time and on seeing the police party, two of the absconding accused ran away and the other three started running away but they were followed and ultimately they were arrested and from them one gun and two revolvers and cartridges were recovered. The cartridges were recovered from bags carried by the three applicants. According to the F.I.R., they had given the reason that they were there for the purpose of hunting. On the basis of the material on record at this stage with the prosecution and the time at which they were arrested with the arms mentioned in the F.I.R., a reasonable presumption can be drawn that section 399, P.P.C. Would be attracted."
3. ' We find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sukkur had rejected the same plea in these words: "I have perused the F.I.R. And Investigation papers, the three applicants were found sitting near the Forest at about 4-40 a.m., two of their companions armed with Rifle and Gun succeeded to escape wherea present three applicants were apprehended and were found armed with deadly weapons.
4. I have gone through the case law cited by the came counsel but the facts of that case are very much different from the fact of present case. In the above referred case two applicants were arrest( by police at about 5-00 p.m., and a dagger and Clip was recovered from those accused but in the present case the weapons like Gun, a Revolve and a country made Pistol have been secured and accused were arrest during odd hours. The offences of robbery and dacoity are increasing by day in this part of province. I therefore under the circumstances am not inclined to release the applicants on bail as they are involved in a serious offence, consequently bail plea is rejected."
5. After having gone through the record before us we find that the learned Judge in the High Court has not violated any provision of law or principle of law in refusing to release the petitioners on bail.
6. There is therefore no valid justification for interference by this Court. I The petition is dismissed.