ABDULLAH MAGSI vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from a criminal trial pending before the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, concerning an F.I.R. registered under Sections 392, 353, and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant, apprehended at the scene following a police encounter, sought post-arrest bail, contending that a co-accused had been granted bail and that his own case required further inquiry. The prosecution opposed the application, highlighting that the applicant was caught red-handed, identified by the complainant, and found in possession of a weapon. The Court held that the applicant’s involvement was prima facie established by the prompt F.I.R., the recovery of a weapon, and his identification parade, distinguishing his case from that of the co-accused. Emphasizing the societal menace of vehicle-snatching in Karachi, the Court determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was guilty. Consequently, the Court ruled that the case did not fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and declined the bail application.
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused automatically entitle another accused to bail?
- When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused caught red-handed with a weapon during a police encounter entitled to bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant is facing trial in the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, East arising out of F.I.R. No,285 of 1998 under sections 392, 353, 324/34, P.P.C.; of P.S. Korangi Industrial Area.
2. ' The prosecution case is disclosed by complainant Sabir Hussain Shah in brief is that he is driver on D.M.C. Truck. On 25-10-1998, he filled up debris in the truck and went to Malir Nadi for deserting the same. At about 7-30 p.m. He was unloading the truck in Malir Nadi when three armed persons came there and snatched Rs,240 cash, NIC Card and K.M.C., truck from him by show of weapons.
3. The culprits left the spot in truck but the complainant informed mobile police, who chased the truck. The culprits on seeing the police party started encounter with police. The applicant who was sitting in wastage compartment of truck tried to run away but was apprehended at the spot by the police, whereas his companions Mushtaq Magsi and Habib Magsi managed to run away leaving the truck. The police took up investigation and submitted challan against the applicant and others.
4. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Mushtaq Magsi has been granted bail by trial Court and that if the bail is not granted to accused he would not be able to defend his case effectively. The learned counsel has further asserted that accused is a young boy and this story is concocted against him. He has further argued that the case of applicant requires further enquiry and the applicant is entitled for bail.
5. ' On the other hand Mr. Arshad Lodhi, A.A.-G. Has opposed this bail application on the ground that the applicant was caught red-handed at the spot while committing the robbery of cash and a truck from the complainant Sabir Hussain. The police reached at the spot and after encounter apprehended the present applicant and recovered one mauser from his possession. The applicant is fully implicated by complainant and the policemen including the Mashirs. The police and complainant had no enmity with the applicant and as such the police had absolutely no reason to implicate him falsely.
6. ' I have carefully attended the aforesaid arguments advanced before me and have gone through the record. The applicant was caught red-handed while committing an offence of robbery. He is fully implicated by complainant as well as other witnesses. The complainant and the police had no reason at all to implicate the applicant in false case. The F.I.R., was promptly lodged and his name was specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. He had fired at the police and was apprehended after encounter with police. The mauser was recovered from his possession and he is facing a separate trial under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance. The applicant was subsequently identified by complainant in identification parade. So far as the case of accused Mushtaq is concerned, his case is distinguishable from the present applicant. The said accused was not caught at spot and was not identified by the complainant in identification parade and his name was taken by the present applicant.
7. ' The Courts cannot be oblivious of the menace of incidence of vehicle-snatching in the city of Karachi and this is the high time to curb and discourage it, as specially our young generation is deeply involved in such dirty activities.
8. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence charged with and is fully involved in the case. His case, therefore, does not fall under the ambit of further enquiry contained under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The bail is, therefore, declined.