Find a Lawyer

‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Espicement of Hudood) Ordinance (V1 of 1979), S.17(3)‑‑Bail‑‑Bank robbery‑‑Accused cashier of Bank, in collusion with another, allegedly arranged robbery‑‑Police record showing that accused was arrested on 3‑10‑1986 and at his pointation recovery of robbed money was made while to Press Conference held on 29‑9‑1986 viz. 4 days earlier a high Police Officer stated that the looted amount had been recovered‑‑Prosecution failed to reconcile the obvious inconsistency‑‑ Identification of accused not arranged through eye‑witnesses‑‑ Prosecution, on one hand stating that a serious offence had been detected and on the other hand deliberately spoiled case so as to favour accused‑‑Such contradiction making case fit for further inquiry‑ Accused admitted to bail.

Abdul Hafeez Lakho for Applicant.

Abdul Rahim Kazi, Addl. A.‑G. (Sind) for the State.

Date of hearing: 4th December, 1986.

Applicant Javed Iqbal is Cashier in Allied Bank; Sunset Boulevard. Defence Housing Society, Karachi. On the day of incident i.e. 28‑9‑1986 he alongwith Rafique Ahmed, second officer and Allah Wassaya cashier were counting the cash while gun‑man Muhammad Shafi had gone to mosque to offer Maghrib prayers. There came one person at 6‑30 p.m. who caught hold of Rafique and put revolver on his chest and told him to bring out the cash. He threw money bag of thick cloth of white colour. Due to ear applicant put all the cash amounting to Rs. 1,39,145. Accused confined all these persons in the strong room and locked the door. After five minutes Chowkidar came and opened the door of the strong room. Appellant went and lodged report at Police Station, Defence Karachi under section 17(3) of Property Hudood Ordinance, 1979. Police during investigation arrested the applicant and recovered some cash and other articles.

Mr. Abdul Hafiz Lakko, has argued that on 29th September, 1986, D.I.‑G. Police Abdul Jabbar Khan in Press Conference stated that robbed amount has been recovered from dilapidated house at Layari, whereas recovery and arrest of applicant is shown on 2‑10‑1986. In support he has produced Press‑cuttings from 'Jung' and 'Dawn', dated 30‑9‑1986.

It is also argued that both the Mashirs are professional Mashirs and are not from the locality. He has referred to the cases reported in 1985 P Cr. L J 2803 and 1983 P Cr. L J 1115. Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, Additional Advocate‑General, appearing for the State has opposed the bail and stated that applicant being a cashier in collusion with co‑accused Tariq Hussain arranged robbery and the case is of a serious nature.

I have gone through the papers and considered the contentions of both the counsel. Applicant himself is complainant.

The Press Conference of Abdul Jabbar Khan, D.I.‑G., Karachi has not been denied by the learned Additional Advocate‑General, but he has argued that it has no evidentiary value. But one fact is very clear that in both the papers it is specifically mentioned by the D.I.‑G. that amount so robbed has been recovered which was hidden underground by co‑accused in a dilapidated building at Juman Shah, Kala Kot. This Press Conference is of 29th September, 1986. On the other hand, the police record shows that applicant Javed was arrested on 3‑10‑1986 and at his pointation an amount of Rs. 1,17,627 and prize bonds of Rs.1,000 were recovered. The learned Additional Advocate‑General has not been able to reconcile these two documents.

This not a Press report but reliance is being placed by the learned counsel on the Press Conference addressed by the responsible police officer whereas recovery has been shown 3 days before the arrest of the accused and that memo. of recovery of cash is also dated 2‑10‑1986.

From the police papers it is clear that identification parade of co- accused Tariq has not been arranged through eye‑witnesses Rafiq Ahmad and Allah Warrayo. It is really unfortunate that on one hand it is said that serious offence has been detected and on the other hand police deliberately spoils the case so as to favour the accused.

From looking to the above contradictory statements I am of the view that this is a fit case for further inquiry. Applicant is admitted to bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South.

M.Y.H./J‑3/K Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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