MUHAMMAD JUMAN vs THE STATE
The present applicant sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 3 of 1999 registered under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Sections 397, 357, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after his bail plea was dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground that co-accused persons were let off by the police or placed in Column No. 2 of the report. The Sindh High Court held that police opinion is not binding on the court and that the applicant's name appeared in the FIR with a specific role in a serious robbery involving stolen golden ornaments. The court laid down the principle that mere exoneration or placement of co-accused in Column No. 2 by investigating agencies does not automatically entitle another accused to bail when sufficient prima facie evidence and a specific role exist in the FIR.
- Is the police opinion or report placing co-accused in Column No. 2 binding on the court during a bail hearing?
- Does the exoneration of co-accused by police automatically entitle another accused person to the concession of bail?
- Can bail be refused to an accused whose name appears in the FIR with a specific role despite contentions regarding police investigation reports?
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 357, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Present applicant is seeking bail in Crime No,3 of 1999 registered with Police Station Veehar under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, 397, 357, 148 and 149, P.P.C. He has approached the trial Court for bail, but without success. Hence this application.
2. ' Name of the applicant alongwith co-accused appears in the F.I.R. And the complainant has been robbed of the golden ornaments valued at Rs,2,38,000 and he has been identified by the complainant M. Inayatualh Morio has argued that co-accused Riaz Abro alongwith K.K and Manthar Sangro have been granted bail. When asked as to why co-accused have been let off by police, learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Inayatullah Morio had not been able to point out the material on the basis of which police have let off the co-accused. However, he has prayed for grant of bail. He has placed reliance on 2000 PCr.LJ 719 and 1982 SCM R 955.
3. ' On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Memon, has opposed with contentions that his name appears in the F.I.R. He has been identified by the complainant and huge quantity of golden ornaments have been forcibly taken away by the accused on the point of gun and KKs and very serious offence has been committed by the applicant.
4. ' I have considered the arguments rendered by learned counsel for the parties and I have gone through the material available on record. Admittedly, name of the applicant appears in the F.I.R.
5. And he along with co-accused has committed robbery in the house of complainant and has deprived him of golden ornaments valued at Rs,2,38,000. The police have let off the co-accused namely Riaz Abro and Manthar Sangro and the contention of the learned defence counsel that since police have placed them in Column No,2 and the present applicant is also entitled to the concession of bail. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that report of police is binding on the Court. There is no hard and fast rule with regard to the binding of police opinion on the Court. Each case has got the peculiar circumstances. The law cited by learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable from the present case. Reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Din v. The State reported in 1998 SCM R 1 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has refused bail to the accused who was found innocent by three different Investigating Agencies and their case was falling within purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. But the bail has been refused by the Honourable Supreme Court on the ground that although three different Investigating Agencies have declared accused innocent but his name appeared in the F.I.R. With specific role and bail has been declined. In the present case name of the present applicant appears with specific role and he has indulged in a very serious offence and has deprived the complainant of golden ornaments valued at Rs,2,38,000 and prima facie, there is sufficient evidence against him and there is involvement of the present applicant in the crime. I do not see merit in the bail application and accordingly it is dismissed.