KIRAR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Kirar, who is facing trial before the Special Judge, S.T.A. Hyderabad, for offenses under Sections 395 and 342 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an F.I.R. alleging dacoity and wrongful confinement. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the allegations of armed robbery and the recovery of stolen property. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, noting that his name appeared in the F.I.R., he was identified as part of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, and incriminating stolen property was recovered from his possession. The court rejected arguments regarding the release of a co-accused by the police and the delay in lodging the F.I.R., emphasizing that the latter is not a universal ground for bail. The court affirmed that the gravity of the offense and the prima facie evidence of involvement warranted the dismissal of the bail application.
- Does the release of a co-accused by the police during investigation automatically entitle another accused to bail?
- Is a delay in lodging an F.I.R. a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in all cases?
- Can bail be granted when the accused is named in the F.I.R. and incriminating property is recovered from his possession?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The facts leading to present application for bail are that applicant/accused Kirar is facing trial before Special Judge, S.T.A. Hyderabad under sections 395 and 342 P.P.C. The case arose out of F.I.R.
2. No.35 of 2000 of Police Station Matiari.
3. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Ahmed Khan on 24-6-2000 are reproduced herein below in extenso:-- "Complaint is that I am hari, I am residing with my brothers Muhammad Bachal and Muhammad Musa within one enclosure in separate houses. On 22-3-2000 we, the brothers namely Muhammad Bachal and Nephew Hassan and Siddique both sons of Muhammad Bachal and Pendi son of Achar Malah, resident of village Bachal Detho and other guests after taking meal were sitting in otak and were chit chatting when at about 10-00 p.m. In the night five persons whose faces were open and I identified them to be Ishaque Joyo resident of Village Ghulam Haider Joyo duly armed with K.K. (2)
4. Manzoor Joyo resident of Karachi Hotel Nasarpur who had K.K. (3) Piral Bachro, resident of Manzoor Abad duly armed with Lanchur, (4) Jaro by caste Meso resident of Manzoor Abad, duly armed with Gun, (5) Kirar son of Haji Hussain Detho resident of Village Bachal Detho armed with Gun, threatened us on the point of weapons. They tied us with cotton towels. Accused Ishaq Joyo and Manzoor Joyo took me ahead and they entered in my house. The accused robbed golden ornaments, cash and licenced weapons belonging to me and my brothers namely Muhammad Bachal and Muhammad Moosa and also threatened me that if, I, disclosed to anybody it will not be good for me. The accused Kirar belongs to our brothery as such We approached to our 'Nek Mard' for getting back our Robbed articles. Wadero Khuda Dino son o f Muhammad Ali Detho told us that Kirar is criminal type man. He is issuing threats and will not return articles. He suggested that we should lodge report at police station against all the above accused stated hereinabove. Now I have come andlodge report that above five persons duly armed with weapons tied us with towels and took away below mentioned golden ornaments, cash and licenced weapons of mine and my brothers and have committed dacoity. Complaint is lodged, Investigations be made.
' DETAILS OF THE ROBBED PROPERTY
(1) From Ahmed Detho (complainant).
(i) One Gun No.245469-SBBL, (2) two gold rings (gents) (3), cash amounting to Rs.6,000 notes of various denomination.
(2) From Muhammad Bachal son of Mahmood.
(i) One Gun No.7214 DBBL, (2) two rings of Gold, (3) Two Gold Naths, (4) Two pairs of Neelam, (5)
5. Two pairs of Manger and (6), Twenty ladies Rings, (7), Two Tikka, (8) four Bangles, (9) Cash amounting to Rs.35,000 notes of different denomination.
(3) From Muhammad Moosa son of. Mahmood.
(i) One Revolver No.6354.32 bore, (2) One dohiry, (3) Two golden Naths, (4) One pair of Neelam, (5)
6. Ten ladies Rings (6), Four Bangles weighing and price not known, and (7) Cash of Rs.44,000 and total cash amount of Rs.85,000.
7. ' The applicant/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but his bail plea was dismissed by impugned order dated 30-4-2003.
8. ' We have heard Mr. Muhammad Younus Behan learned counsel on behalf of applicant/accused and Mr. Rasheed Ahmed Qureshi, learned A.A.-G. For the State as well as Mr. Muhammad Azim Panmwhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of A.A.-G. For the State. Both the letter learned counsel have opposed the bail plea of applicant/accused.
9. The perusal of material placed on record shows that name of applicant/accused transpires in the F.I.R. He alongwith his companions formed an unlawful assembly, duly armed with deadly weapons barged in the house of complainant and committed robbery of valuable articles at gun-point.
10. Nothing has been placed on record from which it could be deduced that complainant or any of prosecution witness was/is biased against the applicant/accused. The recovery of some robbed property was made from the possession of applicant/accused. Merely, co-accused Jaro whose name transpires in the F.I.R has been let off by the police during the course of investigation is no ground for grant of bail to applicant/accused as he i.e. Jaro could be joined at any stage of the case if any incriminating evidence comes on record. The delay in lodging report has, been explained in the F.I.R. Even otherwise- the delay in lodging of F.I.R. Is no ground for grant of bail in each and every case. In this context we are fortified by the decision of apex Court in case of Haji Gul Khan v. Gul Daraz Khan and another reported in 1995 SCM R 1765. The case of co-accused Peeral who was granted bail by this Court is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. ' Resultantly, the application stands dismissed.
12. ' At this juncture, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant/accused requests that direction may be issued to the trial Court for early disposal of the cas.
13. Bail appellant dismissed.