NAVEED AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused person charged in connection with a daylight robbery. The complainant, a salesman, alleged that he was lured to a specific location under false pretenses, where the applicant brandished a T.T. Pistol while an accomplice snatched a bag containing cash. The complainant pursued the culprits, leading to the applicant's immediate apprehension by the police with the weapon in his possession. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly given the argument that the cash was recovered from a co-accused and that the co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court held that the bail application was premature and dismissed it. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that there was sufficient prima facie evidence of the applicant's direct involvement, specifically his apprehension during hot pursuit with the crime weapon. The Court emphasized that in cases involving serious offenses like robbery, where there is immediate recovery of the weapon and no evidence of enmity between the complainant and the accused, bail should not be granted at the initial stage.
- Is an accused entitled to bail solely on the ground that a co-accused has been granted bail?
- Does the recovery of a crime weapon from an accused during hot pursuit constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Can a bail application be considered premature when there is prima facie evidence of the accused's direct involvement in the crime?
ORDER
ORDER
1. ' This is a case of daylight robbery accompanied by use of technical methods. As per F.I.R.
2. Complainant Naveed Ahmed is a salesman in Mobilink. On 28-1-2002 he was on his duty, carrying cash of about Rs,3,25,030 in a handbag. On the way, he was contacted on mobile telephone an asked to reach Children Ward of Jinnah Hospital as some cards were requited for a shop. He was informe I that his contact number was given to 'Le caller by the complainant's boss. The complainant went to the given spot where present applicant dew a T.T. Pistol, while the other culprit snatched the handbag. The complainant intelligently removed the key of his motorcycle; therefore, the culprits could not use the same and started running away by foot. Complainant was ' threatened with death in case he followed the culprits, but he mustered courage and raised cries and followed the culprits. He reached the applicant and with the has of police, who also arrived there in the meantime, caught hold of the applicant. T.T. Pistol was secured from the possession of applicant.
3. ' I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned State Counsel.
4. ' Mr. Manzoor A. Bhutta, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during investigation cash was recovered from the co-accused and not from the applicant and the role was not assigned to the applicant distinctly in the F.I.R. And that under the rule of consistency the applicant is entitled to grant of bail, since the co-accused has been granted bail by the trial Court.
5. ' Mr. Fazalur Rahman Awan, learned State Counsel opposed the bail on the ground that the applicant was captured soon after the incident with T.T. Pistol and on that point there is evidence of two Witnesses against him. He submitted that there -is no evidence to indicate that the complainant had enmity with the accused/applicant to involve him falsely.
6. ' I have considered these contentions carefully. Prima facie, there is sufficient evidence to show that on hot pursuit the applicant was captured immediately with the help of police and the crime weapon was secured from him. Learned trial Court has rightly observed that there is alarming increase in the incidents of robberies in the city and innocent citizens are unsafe. The bail plea, at this stage, is premature and the application is dismissed.