ESSA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Essa, who was charged under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance Harabah), 1979, following an alleged robbery of an oil tanker. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the evidence connecting him to the crime, specifically his identification by witnesses and his apprehension in the vehicle allegedly used during the commission of the offence. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail. The ratio decidendi rests on the finding that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that there was sufficient material on record, including identification by three eyewitnesses and the applicant's arrest in the suspect truck, to establish a prima facie case. The court affirmed the principle that deeper appreciation of evidence is reserved for the trial stage and that bail should be declined where sufficient incriminating material exists in cases involving serious offences like Harabah.
- Does the offence of Harabah under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance Harabah) 1979 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
- Can bail be denied when there is sufficient material on record to connect the accused with the commission of the crime?
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance Harabah) 1979
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' The applicant Essa is involved in F.I.R. 18 of 2001 recorded at Police Station Dabeji under section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance Harabah), 1979.
2. ' The incident of this case had occurred on 2-8-2001 at about 1-45 hours and the F.I.R. Of this case was lodged by one Darya Khan with Dabeji Police on 4-8-2001 at about 4-00 p.m. It is stated in the F.I.R. That he is driver of Tanker No,JP-0382, belonging to Seth Nasir. On 1-8-2001 he was going from Karachi to Gujjo when on the way one Wahid Bux Bahrani also accompanied him for going to Gharo. At about 1-45 hours, they reached at Baba Bukhari diversion, they were approached by a truck coming behind them. The said truck gave a signal for stopping the Tanker. The complainant stopped the oil Tanker. It is stated that four persons with open faces came out from the aforesaid truck, out of whom two were armed with pistol and the rest two were empty-handed. They were seen by complainant party in the light of vehicles and they can identify them if they are shown to them. Out of the four two persons seated in the oil tanker of complainant and went away. The remaining two who were aimed with T.T. Pistol seated in their own truck and followed the tanker of complainant towards Karachi side.
3. ' The complainant party got a lift in some vehicle and came to Seth Nasir. They were searching for their\tanker but could not get any clue thereafter lodged this report.
4. ' The police arrested the present applicant Essa alongwith accused Zulfiqar on 5-8-2001 when they were going in a truck bearing No, BU-3049.
5. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accused/applicant has been implicated falsely. He is simply a labourer on the truck. The applicant was arrested on 5-8-2001 whereas the identification test was held on 13-8-2001 after 8 days of his arrest. There is no iota of evidence to connect the applicant with the commission of the offence.
6. ' Mr. Javed Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that the present applicant was rightly picked up in identification test by eye-witnesses; Wahid Bux, Ashraf and Darya Khan. The said identification test is supported by the Civil Judge and F.C.M., Mir Pur Sakro. The case under section 17(3) of the Hudood Ordinance is covered by prohibitory clause contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
7. Perusal of record shows that tanker of the complainant was followed by a truck bearing No,BU- 3049. The tanker was robbed on pistol point by the culprits. They were identified on vehicle lights.
8. After 11 days of the incident they were rightly picked up in identification test by three eye-witnesses.
9. No enmity is suggested against the aforesaid witnesses. The case of Harabah is covered by prohibitory clauses of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The Harabah and the robbery cases are on rise nowadays in this area. At present there is sufficient material on record to connect the applicant with the commission of crime. The present applicant was arrested from the same truck, which had followed the tanker of the complainant. The deeper appreciation of evidence can only be made after the evidence is recorded at trial.
10. ' The applicant does not deserve bail, which is declined.
11. Bail declined.