MUHAMMAD RAEES vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Raees, who was charged in connection with a robbery incident at the house of the complainant, Amir Baig. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery of stolen property and the delay in the trial proceedings. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail. The reasoning was primarily based on the fact that no identification parade was conducted to link the applicant to the actual robbery, and the evidence against him was limited to the possession of robbed articles, which does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant had been incarcerated for one year without the framing of a charge or the examination of any witnesses. The key principle laid down is that where the evidence against an accused is limited to possession of stolen property and does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and where there is significant delay in the trial, bail should be granted.
- Does the mere possession of robbed articles, in the absence of an identification parade, trigger the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if they have been incarcerated for a significant period without the framing of a charge or the examination of witnesses?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' On 18-3-2002 three bandits out of whom two had pistols, trespassed into the house of Amir Baig at about 3-00 p.m. And made the inmates of the house hostage confining them in one room. One of the culprits kept watch over them whereas the two culprits collected valuable from the entire house. After collecting ornaments and other valuable including VCP the bandits went out bolting the room from outside and asking the inmates not to report the matter to anyone.
2. ' On 26-3-2002 Amir Baig lodged the report with Korangi Police, stating therein that they will be able to identify the culprits having robbed them. He also stated further that fourth culprit was also seen standing outside the house. He had Motorcycle No,KB-6461.
3. ' During investigation Syed Wamiq Hussain alias Khurram was arrested. It alleged that he gave a clue about the involvement of applicant Muhammad Raees and two others whereafter the applicant was arrested on 2-4-2002. He (applicant) is said to have produced one set of gold ornaments besides one ring and one locket, which were identified by the complainant at the time of recovery. Applicant's co-accused Syed Wamiq Hussain alias Khurram was granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 21-10-2002 for the reason that no recovery was made from him.
4. ' No doubt, recovery of some of the robbed jewellery is said to have been made from applicant Muhammad Raees but that is so many days after the incident. No identification parade was held for knowing as to whether the applicant was among the culprits having committed actual robbery.
5. In absence of that the evidence against him shows the possession of robbed articles and that offence by itself is not punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more. The embargo put of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is not applicable. Moreover this applicant/accused has remained in jail for one year as reported by the learned counsel and not a single witness has been examined nor charge has been framed. He, therefore, deserves the concession of bail. . He shall be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.