Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No. 469 of 1985, decided on 16th May, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 497/498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 392/34/170‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)‑‑Bail‑‑Accused, a policeman, on pretext of checking, robbing citizens during day time‑‑Accused correctly identified by complainant and no enmity alleged‑‑Prima facie case of robbery made out against accused‑‑Bail refused.

‑‑‑S. 497/498‑‑Bail‑‑At bail stage only tentative assessment of evidence, held, to be made.

‑‑‑S. 497/498‑‑Bail‑‑Every case is to be decided on its own merit and consideration.

Asad Ali Bilgrami for Petitioner.

M.I. Memon, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.

Applicant Sohail Ahmed has been charged for the offences under section 392/34/170, P.P.C. and 17(3) Hudood Property Ordinance.

The case of prosecution is that on 19‑4‑1985 some persons stopped complainant Jawaid Hayat Khan and one Bengali at Rashid Minhas Road in the lane of Petrol Pump, they demanded curfew pass from them and posed as policemen. Complainant told them that he had no curfew pass on which they started taking his search and took out Rs.47 by force and in the same manner they also took out 88.23 from one Bengali resident of Aisha Manzil.

Complainant went in search of these persons and made a complaint to Army Officer at Sohrab Goth who sent police party to arrest the culprits. The complianant and police party reached at the same place and found those persons were still standing. On seeing police party 3 persons succeeded in running away while one man who gave his name as Naseem was arrested. On interrogation Naseem disclosed names of his companions as Sohail, Talat, Shiraz and Azhar. A case was registered.

Mr. Asad Bilgrami appearing for applicant contended that no identification was held and that only complainant has implicated the applicant Sohail Ahmed. He has argued that this is not a case of robbery but of impersonation and may fall under section 419, P.P.C. Mr. Bilgrami has cited a case reported in P L D 1981 S C 142 and further submitted in identical case on similar facts this Court granted bail in Criminal Bail No. 429 of 1985.

Mr. M.I. Memon learned Additional A.‑G. has opposed the bail application and stated that F.I.R. of this case was lodged immediately and applicant was arrested and identified by the complainant.

Complainant Jawaid immediately after the incident went to Army officer and made complaint. Naseem was arrested standing at the same place as pointed out by the complainant. After the arrest, the applicant was identified by complainant Jawaid. During the investigation it transpired that applicant is a police constable M. T. Section at Police Headquarter. In these circumstances the section 419, P.P.C. has rightly not been applied in F.I.R. This is a case where allegation is that custodians of the law (Policemen) on the pretext of checking have robbed the citizens during day time. Applicant has been correctly identified by complainant and no enmity is alleged. In my view prima facie case of robbery is made out and applicant is not entitled to bail. So far case of Supreme Court referred by Mr. Bilgrami is concerned, I have only to say that it was an appeal against acquittal and not a bail case. At the bail stage only tentative assessment of the evidence is to be made. The facts of the other case referred by Mr. Bilgrami are different. In bail matters every case is to be decided on its own merits and consideration.

This application is without merits as such it is dismissed.

M. Y. H.

Bail refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.