MUHAMMAD SHAHID vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Shahid against the order of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, declining his request for post-arrest bail in a case involving dacoity and robbery of factory premises. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the nature of the recovery of stolen property and whether deeper appreciation of evidence is permissible at the bail stage. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner led to the recovery of a huge quantity of copper coils constituting robbed property shortly after his arrest, establishing a prima facie case against him. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that a court examining a bail petition must only make a tentative assessment of the facts and avoid a deeper appreciation of evidence regarding knowledge or merits at this stage.
- Whether recovery of robbed property at the pointation of an accused constitutes a prima facie case disentitling him to bail?
- Can a court undertake a deeper appreciation of evidence regarding the knowledge of the accused at the bail stage?
- To what extent should a court examine the merits of a case when deciding a petition for post-arrest bail?
ORDER
' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---The petitioner Muhammad Shahid seeks leave to appeal against the order, dated 27-11-2000 passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi whereby his request for grant of bail was declined.
2. Precisely the case of the prosecution is that one Ahmed Tahir Naqvi, Personnel Manager of Landhi Engineering Works (Pvt.) Limited lodged an F.I.R. On 17-7-2000 stating therein that on 16-7- 2000 at about 8-00 p.m. 15/20 culprits trespassed the premises of the factory by scaling over the wall, overpowered the Security Guards and locked them in a room and robbed away the copper sheet coils weighing about 24 tons, one fridge, one T.V. Panasonic, VCR, Licensed pistol and cash of Rs,25,000 after loading the same in trucks.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly urged that the robbed property was, in fact, not recovered from the exclusive possession of the present, petitioner but the same was recovered from the Suzuki Van standing in front of his shop simply at his pointation. According to him, the said recovery is not admissible in evidence and the case against the petitioner requires further inquiry and he is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. We have carefully considered all aspects of the case. Both forums below have discussed in detail the reasons for refusal of bail to the petitioner which, in our opinion, do not call for interference. The petitioner was arrested on 31-8-2000 and he immediately after arrest led to the recovery of huge quantity of 25 number coppers coils, the property of the dacoity, thus there appears to be a prima facie, case against him to disentitle him the concession of bail. Any opinion at this stage of bail to the effect that the petitioner had no knowledge that the property was stolen in a dacoity would amount to deeper appreciation of evidence. It is settled principle that the Court seized of jurisdiction for examining question of bail should make only tentative assessment of the facts without making detailed reference to the merits.
' This being so, there is no substance in this petition which is dismissed by refusing leave to appeal.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN KHOKHAR vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 839
- MUHAMMAD ANSAR Versus THE STATE 2004 PCRLJ 1035