KHURRAM SHAHZAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused person charged in an F.I.R. regarding an incident of robbery. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with a co-accused, entered the complainant's house, beat him, and snatched money. While the co-accused was apprehended at the scene with a weapon and the stolen money, the petitioner allegedly fled. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not attributed any overt act, from whom no recovery was made, and who was a juvenile (aged approximately 16 years), was entitled to the concession of bail. The Court observed that the petitioner was not alleged to have carried a weapon or committed a specific overt act, and that he had been in judicial custody since his arrest. Finding no compelling reason to deny bail under the circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The principle laid down is that where an accused is not attributed any specific overt act, no recovery is effected from him, and he is a juvenile, he is entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail where no overt act is attributed to him and no recovery is effected from his possession?
- Does the absence of a criminal record and the juvenile status of an accused weigh in favor of granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
' As per F.I.R. Petitioner and his co-accused Ali Irfan Shahzad entered the house of Khurshid Anwar, complainant gave him beating and snatched Rs.2820. Ali Irfan Shahzad was apprehended alongwith pistol .30 bore and Rs.2820 and produced before police at the time of registration of case whereas Khurram Shahzad (petitioner) fled away from the spot. The petitioner was arrested on 22-9-2003. Hence, this bail petition.
2. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and no recovery has been effected from him. He contended that petitioner is aged about 15-1/2 years and is not previous convict; therefore, he deserves the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant as well as State have opposed the bail petition on the grounds that petitioner is nominated in F.I.R. And he was present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time and that his family members are involved in many criminal cases.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above the allegation against the petitioner is that he was present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time alongwith his co-accused Ali Irfan Shahzad. According to F.I.R. He was empty-handed and no role has been attributed to him. During investigation nothing was recovered from the petitioner. The prosecution case is that his co-accused Ali Irfan Shahzad was apprehended by the complainant and P.Ws. At the spot whereas petitioner fled away. The petitioner is aged about 16 years and does not appear to be previous convict. He is in judicial lock- up since 22-9-2003. As such, without going into merit of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner, therefore, application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail (in case F.I.R. No.82, dated 23-8-2003 under sections 392/411, P.P.C. Read with section 13, Arms Ordinance, 1965 (Police Station Mankera, District Bhakkar) subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.80,000 (Rupees eighty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- SAFEER AHMAD Versus State 2018 PCrLJN 40