ADEELURREHMAN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from two bail applications filed by the applicants seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving dacoity and robbery. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to bail considering the circumstances of identification, the delayed recovery of a portion of the robbed property, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that since the complainant initially stated only two persons committed the robbery, no identification test was held, and the recovery made after forty days prima facie attracts an offense punishable under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the restrictive embargo of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not attracted. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicants subject to furnishing surety bonds, laying down the principle that offenses falling outside the prohibitory clause warrant the grant of bail when further inquiry into the applicants' guilt is made out.
- Whether the absence of an identification test and delayed recovery of robbed property brings the case outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an offense under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 punishable to an extent that attracts the embargo contained in section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When are accused persons entitled to post-arrest bail in a robbery case where recovery is delayed and identity is questionable?
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two bail applications relating to the same offence.
2. Facts of the case are that during night intervening 19th and 20th March, 2003 at about 9-45 p.m.
Two bandits equipped with pistols entered the house of complainant Mujeebullah and made the inmates hostage at pistol point. They then took away one DBBL shotgun, saving certificates worth Rs,5,00,000 and jewellry. The F.I.R. Of the incident was lodged by Mujeebullah on 20-3-2003 at 4-00 p.m. With Saoodabad Police.
3. It is said that during investigation applicant's co-accused Arshad Baig Mirza was arrested and he, during interrogation, informed that applicants Adeel-ur-Rehman and Muhammad Atiq were also with him and Mirza Qamran when they had committed robbery from the house of Mujeebullah. It is also said that on 25-32003, on a tip of, party of Saoodabad police found applicant Adeel-ur-Rehman armed with DBBL gun available in the bushes near Malir Colony. When challenged he managed his escape throwing the gun there. The gun which he is alleged to have thrown was same which had been robbed from the house of Mujeebullah.
4. On 27-5-2003, on the basis of information, a party of Saoodabad police arrested the applicants Adeel-ur-Rehman and Muhammad Atiq. They are alleged to have been possessing unlicensed pistols one each. Thereafter they are said to have led the police on 31-5-2003 and jointly produced some of the jewellry robbed from the house of Mujeebullah.
5. After investigation the applicants were sent for trial together with Mirza Arshad Baig. The fourth person challaned with them was Mirza Qamran. He was shown as absconder.
6. Heard arguments.
7. Firstly present is the case where Mujeebullah, the complainant, claimed only two persons to have committed robbery from his house but the police have challaned four persons. No identification test was arranged by the investigation officer. The only part of the robbed jewelry is alleged to have been recovered from the applicants nearly about 40 days after the incident of robbery. Apparently for the present recovery constitutes offence under section 411, P.P.C. Which is punishable for three years and as such embargo put by section 497, Cr.P.C. Is not attracted. Therefore, the applicants have a case for bail. . They shall be released on 'furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R.
Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- AKHTAR ALI GHOWADA vs The STATE 2015 MLD 1661