ABDUL WAHID vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Wahid, who was charged under Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly preparing to commit dacoity. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was apprehended by police based on intelligence that he and others were armed and preparing for a robbery. The applicant sought bail after his initial application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. During the proceedings, the State counsel conceded that the available material did not sufficiently demonstrate that the applicant had made the necessary preparations to commit an offence under Section 399, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, it was noted that the applicant had already been granted bail in a separate case concerning the recovery of the same weapon (a T.T. Pistol) used as evidence in the present matter. Finding merit in the submissions, the Court admitted the applicant to bail, emphasizing the lack of evidence regarding the essential ingredients of the charged offence.
- Does the mere presence of an accused with a weapon, without further evidence of preparation, satisfy the requirements of Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Should bail be granted when the State concedes that the material available does not support the essential ingredients of the charged offence?
- Section 399, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Abdul Wahid who has been arrested by police in connection with a case registered against him under section 399, P.P.C. At Police Station New Karachi as Crime No,409/1992.
2. ' The application for bail moved earlier before the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi/Central was dismissed by his order dated 15-12-1992.
3. ' According to prosecution, on 12-11-1992, at about 2-30 p.m. Police party headed by S.H.O. Syed Bahadur Ali of Police Station New Karachi received spy information that six persons were present near Jewellery Market at U.P. Society duly armed with fire-arms with intention to commit dacoity.
4. On receiving this information, the S.H.O. Alongwith police officials and Haji Allah Bux and Abdur Rasheed went to that place and found the applicant and other persons there. Three persons, out of those persons, ran away from the spot, on seeing the police party. Applicant and two persons were arrested at the spot. From the possession of the applicant one T.T. Pistol of .30 bore with magazine and two bullets were recovered for which the applicant had allegedly no licence.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in this case there is nothing to show that the applicant had made preparations to commit the offence under section 399, P.P.C. In support of his contention, he has relied on 1989 P Cr. L J 2314 and 1990 P Cr. L J 41.
6. Mr. Shaikh Azizur Rahman, learned State counsel has submitted that the material available with the prosecution does not show that the applicant had allegedly made any preparation for committing offence as contemplated under section 399, P.P.C. He has also submitted that for the recovery of same T.T. Pistol and the bullets the applicant has been challaned before the Court in another case and in that case the learned Sessions Judge has admitted the applicant to bail.
7. For the foregoing reasons, I admit the applicant to bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) and P.R. B Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
8. Bail allowed.
Cited by 4 cases
- MUHAMMAD ALI alias CHAND MIAN vs THE STATE 1997 MLD 1875
- MUHAMMAD ALI Alias CHAND MIAN vs THE STATE 1997 MLD 1875
- JAMALUDDIN And Another vs THE STATE 1995 MLD 1779
- MUBIN ALI SIDDIQUI Alias HAMAYUN vs THE STATE 1997 MLD 2479