QAMAR AWAN vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 283 dated 24-7-2001 registered under sections 382 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad, for allegedly waylaying the complainant along with co-accused and depriving him of cash and a wrist-watch while armed with a weapon. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in the circumstances of the case where only a dagger was recovered from him and no snatched cash was found in his possession. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that since only a dagger was recovered from the petitioner, no robbed amount was found on him, and he was not a previous convict, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that recovery of a weapon without the recovery of robbed property from an accused, coupled with lack of previous conviction and continuous incarceration, makes out a case for further probe warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when only a weapon is recovered from him and no robbed property is traced to his possession?
- Does the absence of previous convictions combined with the recovery of only a dagger make out a case for further probe under criminal law?
- Can bail be granted when co-accused have allegedly recovered amounts but the main petitioner's case is distinguishable regarding the robbed cash?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No,283, dated 24-7-2001 under sections 382/411. P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad.
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 21-7-2001 while the complainant was on his way to brick-kiln for purchasing bricks he was waylaid by the three persons who were later on disclosed to be Dawood, Shahbaz and Qamar Awan (present petitioner). They are said to have deprived him of Rs,11,010 as well as wrist-watch. They are further stated to be armed with pistol and dagger.
3. The petitioner applied for bail which relief has been declined to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala vide his order dated 14-9-2001. Hence the instant petition.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was arrested on 24-7-2001 and except a dagger nothing else has been recovered from him. He further submits that his co- accused have also been arrested, that from his co-accused Dawood and Shahbaz a sum of Rs,7,750 and Rs,3,000 has been recovered respectively.
6. Conversely bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State. However, it is admitted that the petitioner is not a previous convict.
7. Since only a dagger is said to have been recovered from the present petitioner and no amount alleged to have been snatched from the complainant has been recovered from the present petitioner and he being in jail since 1-8-2001, his case requires further probe. As such the petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.