RIZWAN HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought bail in a case involving charges under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, specifically related to the armed snatching of a motor vehicle. The petitioner had initially applied for bail before the trial court and subsequently the High Court, relying on the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, citing delay in the conclusion of the trial. Both lower courts dismissed the bail applications, noting the heinous nature of the offense. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in refusing bail. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the high incidence of car-snatching offenses in Karachi justified the invocation of the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court held that the refusal of bail was appropriate given the gravity of the offense and the prevailing circumstances, and thus dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Does the high incidence of car-snatching offenses justify the denial of bail under the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be refused on the ground of the heinous nature of the offense despite a delay in the trial process?
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner is facing charges under section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South.
2. ' It may be pointed out that First Information Report was lodged on 7-8-1996 at 11-00 a.m. At Police Station North Nazimabad regarding snatching of a Suzuki High-roof motor car from its owner by two persons who were said to be armed with T.T. Pistols. On the next day at about 11-00 hours, five persons including the petitioner were involved in an encounter with police and the said car is said to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, a case under section 17(3) of the said Ordinance was registered at the said police station against him. The petitioner filed his bail application invoking the third proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. On the ground of delay in the conclusion of his trial. The bail application was, however, dismissed as the petitioner was found to be involved in car snatching which was an offence of heinous nature. The petitioner's bail application filed before the High Court has also been dismissed on the same ground.
3. We find that the order passed by the learned Judge in Chambers is not open to exception. The learned Judge in the High Court obviously could not be oblivious of the high incidence of cases of car-snatching in the city of Karachi. Therefore, in our opinion, he rightly invoked the fourth proviso to section 497(1) while rejecting the petitioner's bail application. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD vs Messrs QUALITY BUILDERS LIMITED 2006 CLC 1060
- AMIR JAN BULADI vs THE STATE 2000 MLD 574
- MISREPORTING OF SUPREME COURT ORDER: vs NOT 2000 SCMR 48