1991PCr (PLP)

Ordinarily, an accused charged with the offence of robbery may avail concession of bail but in the present case, the manner of incident and the latest tendency of committing the dacoities, robberies and looting on Highways, had created a terror among the peace-loving people. It was, therefore, the august duty of the Courts to apply their mind deeply on the nature of the incident and surrounding circumstances, particularly in cases of dacoities and robberies and to allow concession of bail in suitable cases. The ordinary sentence prescribed for such offences was 14 years' rigorous imprisonment. In the circumstances, the accused could not claim bail as a matter of right. The matter of bail was decided by the trial Court in exercise of judicial discretion. Such orders were interfered or disturbed only on the satisfaction that the order was found to have been passed in an arbitrary manner, in derogation to the accepted norms of justice. In the present case, the order of the trial Court was not found lacking in judicial character. It was, therefore, sustained. A.R. Zubair Butt for Appellants. M. Nisar Mirza, Addl. A.-G. for the State. The appeal is addressed against the order of District Criminal Court, Kotli, passed on June 26, 1990, whereby the plea of the accused-appellants for their release on bail, was turned down.

2. The alleged incident of `Haraabah' took place at 1-30 a.m. on the night of April 17/18, 1990 and the report was made at 2-30 a.m. Subedar Javed made a report that he was travelling in Jeep NO.AJK/8831 alongwith Lance Naik Muhammad Hussain and Ourban Ali Abbasi, on the night of occurrence. At 1-30 at night when they reached the point of Panag Gali, they found that 3 trucks were stopped in the road, out of which front wheels of two of them were burst. Four persons armed with guns and revolvers were standing there. Two of them were taller and other two were of medium size. They were speaking `Pashto' and they were engaged in robbing the truck-drivers and the conductors. They stopped the jeep of the complainant by pointing a gun towards them, and directed them to get down. They searched the complainant and his associates and took away a .32 bore revolver No.8858, a hold (?) all carrying 20 bullets, one `Rado' wrist watch and Rs.1,000 in cash and other articles described in the first information report. These articles were recovered from Hidayatullah, Sher Bahadur, Sardar Ali Shah and Mir Wali Shah, accused. The accused applied for their release on bail. Their request was rejected.

3. Mr. Abdul Rahim Zubair Butt, the learned counsel for the defence argued that there was delay in the F.I.R. The delay was not explained. The names of the accused were not mentioned in the F.I.R. Moreover, the accused were not identified at the time of incident. The identification parade was held 2-1/2 months after the incident which was of no value and that the stolen articles recovered at the instance of the accused were of ordinary nature, not carrying any specific mark of identification. In the circumstances, it was argued that the accused deserved their release on bail. The learned Additional Advocate-General opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and argued that the F.I.R. was made one hour after the incident. One of the stolen articles was the licensed revolver of the complainant, which was recovered from the accused persons, which established the link of the accused with the alleged incident of Haraabah. The learned Additional Advocate-General further argued that the accused were not State-subjects who committed very serious offence, as such they deserved no concession of bail.

4. It is un-denied that the complainant has no motive to involve the accused in the incident of robbery described above. The fact that the names of the accused were not given in the F.I.R. supports the contention of the prosecution as the names and addresses of the accused were not known to the complainant. The accused, as a matter of fact, were identified by virtue of their facial and lingual expressions. They were found linked with the alleged offence on account of recovery of revolver, the number of which was given in the F.I.R.

5. Ordinarily, an accused charged with the offence of robbery may avail concession of bail but in the present case, the manner of incident and the latest tendency of committing the dacoities, robberies and looting on Highways, have created a terror among the peace-loving people. It is, therefore, the august duty of the Courts to apply their mind deeply on the nature of the incident and surrounding circumstances, particularly in cases of dacoities and robberies and to allow concession of bail in suitable cases. The ordinary sentence prescribed for such offences is 14 years' rigorous imprisonment. In the circumstances, the accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right.

6. The matter of bail is decided by the trial Court in exercise of judicial discretion. Such orders are interfered or disturbed only on the satisfaction that the order is found to have been passed in an arbitrary manner, in derogation to the accepted norms of justice. In the present case, the order of the trial Court is not found lacking in judicial character. It is, therefore, sustained. There is no force in the appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed. M.BA./420/H.C.A.????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.