KAMRAN and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Kamran and another, in connection with a criminal case registered under Sections 393, 398, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants were apprehended by passengers and the conductor after allegedly boarding a bus, brandishing pistols, and injuring the driver and a passenger during the commission of the offense. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail based on affidavits filed by two prosecution witnesses exonerating them. The Court held that the bail application should be dismissed, observing that the applicants' conduct constituted a terrorist act that caused public panic and physical injury. The Court determined that the provided affidavits were insufficient to warrant bail, particularly because a third material witness, the Manager of the P.B.S. Petrol Pump, had not provided an affidavit. The Court established the principle that in cases involving serious, dangerous, or terrorist-like acts, bail cannot be granted solely on the basis of partial witness exoneration, especially when other material witnesses remain to be examined.
- Are affidavits from some prosecution witnesses sufficient to grant bail when other material witnesses have not yet testified?
- Does the commission of a dangerous or terrorist-like act during an attempted robbery disentitle an accused to bail?
- Can a court direct the trial court to expedite the examination of material witnesses as a condition for future bail applications?
- Section 393, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 398, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The present applicants are seeking bail in Crime No,302 of 2000 under sections 393/398/34, P.P.C.
2. Registered with Police Station Jamshed Quarters. They have bail application before the trial Court but without success.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Asif, driver, was driving a coach and on 4-11-2000 at about 3-35 hours; left for Hyderabad at 6-45 hours in the evening, when it reached to Jehangir Road near P.B.S. Petrol Pump, the Bus driving became slow due to rush of traffic on the road. The front gate of bus was opened, suddenly 2 persons came inside the bus, and both of them took out pistols. The accused Noor Gul son of Bahadur Khan pointed his pistol on the head of the driver and told him to drive the bus slowly. Another accomplice whose name was later on known as Kamran pointed the pistol on the passenger sitting in the bus. The passengers got hold of them and begun to beat each other and during this period, the pistol which was in the hand of Noor Gul has trigged and hit the neck of Asif/complainant and he was injured. Both the accused jumped outside the bus; one of the accused fell down on the road and with the help of conductor and passengers both the two accused persons were taken into the custody and removed to the concerned police station.
4. Mr. S.M. Ismail Shah, learned counsel for applicant has argued that it is a case of attempt and two witnesses namely Muhammad Asif who is complainant and Raja Habib, who is conductor have sworn the affidavit and exonerated the present applicant. When asked by the learned counsel for applicant, that is there any other witness in the case of the A factum of the incident. The learned counsel for applicant has replied that the Manager of P.B.S. Petrol Pump is also one of the witnesses and prayed for grant of bail.
5. ' Mr. Sharafat Ali Khan, learned State. Counsel has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant with tooth and nail.
6. ' I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for parties at Bar and have gone through the material available on record.
7. Admittedly the act of the applicants is terrorist act. They have not only occupied the bus, which was loaded with passengers but also created panic in the bus; they injured two persons; they were also injured. The affidavits filed by two witnesses are not sufficient, until and unless the affidavit is filed by the other witness in the case, namely, Manager of P.B.S. Petrol Pump. The present applicant is not entitled to bail even on the ground of delay. Reliance can be placed on 1999 SCM R 131. The act of the present applicants is terrorist and dangerous act and if such terrorist activities are encouraged, nobody will be saved in the society. The applicant has miserably failed to make out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.
8. ' However, the trial Court is directed to examine material witness within one month from the receipt of this order and thereafter the applicants will be at liberty to move bail application.