MUNIR AHMAD alias MUNIR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicants, who are facing trial before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, for charges under sections 393 and 341 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the allegations of robbery and causing firearm injuries to prosecution witnesses. The applicants argued that co-accused had been granted bail and that the injured witnesses had not implicated them in statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court, however, noted that the injured witnesses had identified the applicants during an identification parade held before a Magistrate and that the stolen service pistol was recovered from the possession of an applicant. Consequently, the Court held that the applicants failed to make out a case for bail. The bail application was dismissed, emphasizing the gravity of the injuries and the incriminating evidence recovered during the investigation.
- Does the recovery of a stolen weapon from an accused's possession constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be refused when injured prosecution witnesses have identified the accused in a judicial identification parade?
- Is the fact that co-accused have been granted bail sufficient grounds for the grant of bail to other applicants?
- Section 393, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 341, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicants seek bail under sections 393 and 341, P.P.C. Read with section 17(3) (E.H.O.)
2. Ordinance, 1979 pending trial before the Court of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu. The allegation against the applicants is that they alongwith co-accused committed robbery of service pistol from P.W. A.S.-I. Muhammad Aslam and caused him fire-arm injury on a link road going from Bhan Saeedabad Town to Talty at 8-00 p.m. On 8-8-1999.
3. ' It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the co-accused have been released on bail by the learned trial Court. It is further contended that both the injured P.Ws. Namely A.S.-I. Muhammad Aslam and Zulfiqar have not implicated the applicants in their statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.
4. ' Learned A.A.-G. Has opposed the prayer of bail of the applicants stating that two prosecution witnesses namely A.S.-I. Muhammad Aslam and Zulfiqar Ali in the alleged incident of robbery received serious injuries. P.W. A.S.-I. Muhammad Aslam was also deprived of his service pistol and cash of Rs,2,600.
5. The injured prosecution witnesses have implicated the applicants by picking them in the identification parade held before a Magistrate. The service pistol of P.W. A.S.-I. Muhammad Aslam was allegedly secured from the possession of the applicant. The case has not so far proceeded. No case for bail is made out. The application is, therefore, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.