2002 PLP 256 (MLD)

Muhammad Zubair Khan, Advocate. Ghulam Asghar for the State. Rana Muhammad Afzal (for M. Imran) for Petitioner. Through this petition the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.148 of 2000 registered on 10‑2‑2000 at Police Station Civil Lines, Gujrat under sections 458, 380 and 411, P.P.C. on the statement of Mst. Khurshid Bibi in which she has alleged that she and her daughter‑in‑law were alone in the house at about 4.p.m. suddenly 4 persons entered into her house. One of them on pistol‑point asked to them to deliver the jewellery and dollars etc. on which she presented him two rings to bangles and similarly her daughter‑in‑law gave 10 bangles and two rings, one locket and one pair of tops to them. According to the complainant about 20/21 tolas of gold valuing Rs.1,20,000 has been taken away by them alongwith the tape recorder. She claims that she can identify the accused person.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that section 458, P.P.C. falls within the prohibitory clause but is not attracted in this case. He further contends that sections 380/411, P.P.C. are not punishable with death, life imprisonment or 10 years sentence. He further contends that the petitioner claims bail on the statutory ground and he is not hardened and criminal and is not involved in numerous cases. Hence, he may be allowed bail. He relied upon NLR 1992 Cr.C. 529.

3. Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner has committed the heinous offence and is not entitled to bail and offence falls within the prohibitory clause and the petitioner is hardened and criminal person.

4. Muhammad Imran was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 26‑6‑2001. During the arguments of this case it was found that the petitioner was refused bail after arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while Muhammad Imran was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat. Vide order dated 16‑8‑2001 notice to Muhammad Imran why his bail shall not be cancelled and explanation was called for from learned Additional Sessions Judge. A.S.I. was directed to effect the service on Muhammad Imran co‑accused. Today he has produced the summons and he has been duly served. Muhammad Imran has not entered appearance. Learned counsel has filed power of attorney on his behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner and respondent has committed the same offence.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Firstly I would like to take up the matter of Muhammad Imran, Learned Additional Sessions Judge in the parawise comments has stated that the factum of rejection of bail application of Zahid Shahzad was concealed by Muhammad Imran and in the bail application it was nowhere mentioned that bail application of the co‑accused has , already been filed in this Court. I have also noticed that 3 bangles amounting to Rs.25,000 were recovered from Zahid Shahzad and 4 bangles amounting to Rs.35,000 were recovered from Muhammad Imran‑which is the case property. The petitioner has been involved in case of serious nature and the allegations against them are that they entered into the house and on the pistol‑point they took away the jewellery amounting to Rs..1,20,000 and subsequently a handsome amount and bangles amounting to Rs.25,000 and 35,000 have been recovered from the petitioner and Muhammad Imran. Learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for Muhammad Imran has failed to point out any reason for the false implication of the petitioner and ‑Muhammad Imran respondent In this case. They have also failed to explain the jewellery and huge amount which have been recovered from both the accused persons. Both the accused are involved in a case of heinous offence due to the peculiar circumstances, they are not entitled to any relief, claimed in the bail application. It has also been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that they are involved in other cases as well. I am not inclined to grant, any discretionary relief in favour of such‑like accused persons who are involved in serious nature of cases especially the cases where the women have been terrorised on pistol‑point and the articles have been snatched by them when they are alone in the house. The statutory ground also not available to both the accused persons as nature of case shows that they are hardened criminal persons and their involvement in other cases as mentioned by the learned trial Court disentitle them to grant of bail. The bail application of Zahid Shahzad is dismissed and the bail already granted to Muhammad Imran by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 26‑6‑2001 is hereby re‑called and his bail is cancelled. A.S.‑I. is directed to inform the learned trial Court that the bail granted to Muhammad Imran has been cancelled. H.B.T./Z‑64/L Bail application dismissed/Order accordingly.