Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 466/11 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1985, decided on 11th November, 1985.

‑‑S. 497/498/561‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1977), S. 17‑‑Bail‑‑Accused allegedly committing daylight robbery after having waylaid complainant and his daughter‑in- law‑‑Persons apprehending accused soon after occurrence mentioned in first information report‑‑Stolen property and arms carried by accused recovered‑‑Accused making no allegation that complainant or persons who apprehended them and witnessed recoveries nursed any grudge against accused‑‑Bail refused.

‑‑‑S. 497/498/561‑A‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17‑‑Bail‑‑Offences like robbery are frequently reported to have been committed in far‑flung areas creating scare among people who of necessity have to travel in such areas‑‑Cases of robbery by waylaying wayfarers should not be taken lightly.

Nasir Saeed Sheikh for Petitioners.

Petitioners, namely, Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Anwar, are involved in a case under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979. They have prayed for grant of bail.

2. Allegations against the petitioners are that on 21st September, 1985, at about 11 a.m., the complainant, Muhammad Husain, and his daughter‑in‑law, Mst. Zahida Begum, were going to the Darbar of a saint, on foot, when they were waylaid by the petitioners. Muhammad Asghar was armed with a knife while Muhammad Anwar petitioner had a Chhuri. They threatened to kill the complainant and his daughter‑in‑law if they resisted, to part with their, belongings. Then petitioner No. 1, Muhammad Asgar robbed the complainant .of Rs.105. Also, he and petitioner No. 2, Muhammad Anwar snatched away ear‑rings of his daughter‑in‑law (Mat. Zahida Begum). These ear‑rings were made of gold. After this incident, the complainant and his daughter‑in‑law were allowed to go wherever they liked. On being freed, they had travelled for some distance when they came across Muhammad Shabbir. They narrated the incident to him: Muhammad Shabbir enlisted the support of Lai Husain and Muhammad Azam and all three of them succeeded in apprehending the petitioners. They produced the petitioners before the police. A sum of Rs.105 and the knife were recovered from Muhammad Asghar petitioner while the ear‑rings and the Churri were recovered from Muhammad Anwar petitioner.

3. It was contended by learned counsel for petitioners that the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners is not punishable under section 17 of the Offences against Property (Enforce ment of Hadood) Ordinance because except the complainant there is no male witness of the alleged robbery itself. Even if the prosecution case, as disclosed in the first information report does not fall within the purview of section 17 of the said Ordinance, it is likely to attract application of section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code where under sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years can be awarded. In this connection, I will also like to refer to section 20 of the said Ordinance which reads as follows:‑

"20. Punishment for Haraabah liable to Tazir.‑‑Whoever commits haraabah which is not liable to the punishment provided for in section 17, or for which proof in either of the forms mentioned in section 17 is not available, or for which punishment of amputation or death may not be imposed or enforced under this Ordinance, shall be awarded the punishment provided in the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), for offence of decoity, robbery or extortion, as the case may."

4. Petitioners are alleged to have committed daylight robbery after having waylaid the complainant and his daughter‑in‑law. Persons by whom they are said to have been apprehended soon after the occurrence are mentioned in the first information report. Stolen property and the arms carried by them were allegedly recovered from the petitioners. It is not the case of the petitioners that the complainant or the persons who allegedly apprehended the petitioners and witnessed the recoveries nursed any grude against them. It is not infrequently that offences like the one involved in this case are reported to have been committed in far‑flung areas.

This has created scare amongst the people who, of necessity, have to travel in such areas. Cases of robbery by waylaying the wayfarers should, therefore, not to be taken lightly.

5. In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to admit the petitioners to bail. The petition is dismissed in limine.

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.