Shahnawaz vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 538 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Shahnawaz VS State S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 379, 411 & 34---Railways Act (IX of 1890), S. 126---Theft, receiving stolen property, common intention, intentional acts, omissions and negligence of public functionaries---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Per prosecution case, the applicant had purchased stolen property i.e. leads/ wires of T/motors Nos.4, 5, 6, cut off from traction motor channel from co-accused, which belonged to Pakistan Railways---Since such act on the part of the co-accused endangered and humen, therefore, after thorough investigation, the police reached the conclusion that the accused had committed the offence in terms of S.126 of the Pakistan Railways Act, 1890---Evidence collected during investigation revealed that the applicant had not removed or stolen the property in question nor was the member of such gang who actually had committed the offence---Mere allegation against the applicant was that he allegedly purchased said stolen property from co-accused and after recording evidence, if prosecution was successful to prove its case, it would fall within compass of S.411, P.P.C---Bare perusal of said Section of law showed that before securing involvement against the applicant, the prosecution was required to prove that the applicant was not only found in possession of the stolen property belonging to Pakistan Railways but he did so with particular intent or knowledge that he would endanger the safety of the persons traveling by train on particular track---In other words in addition to the actual removal or theft of certain property, the prosecution had to prove the requisite intent or knowledge on the part of the applicant that he was likely to endanger the safety of any person or persons travelling by train on particular track---Mere purchase of said property from co-accused would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the applicant in terms of the provision contained under Pakistan Railways Act, 1890 unless the prosecution further proved it by way of evidence---As per available direct or circumstantial material, no evidence had been brought on record that the applicant did so with intent or knowledge that he was likely to endanger the safety of the persons travelling by the particular train---Prosecution witnesses in their respective statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., had not, in any way connected the applicant with actual removal/theft of the property---In other words, it was an admitted fact that there was no material available on the record to establish that the applicant had either been actually seen by any one removing the said property or seen in suspicious circumstances near the place of occurrence carrying such stolen property immediately after the occurrence---Applicant was not nominated in FIR as an accused, however, he was implicated in this case on disclosure made by the co-accused, during investigation---Upon recovery of alleged stolen property from his shop applicant was arrayed as an accused---Under the circumstances, mere recovery of stolen articles from the applicant and in absence of any corroborative piece of evidence, it could safely be held that the offence committed by the applicant fell under S.411, P.P.C. and not under S.126 of Pakistan Railways Act---Only presumption which, therefore, could be raised against the applicant was that he was found in possession of stolen articles which he must have received knowing them to be stolen or otherwise and same was yet to be proved by the prosecution whether the applicant had received or purchased the same knowingly or in good faith---Applicant was not participant of co-accused while committing the offence of theft, however, was found in possession of certain stolen goods and such accusation against him was yet to be established by the prosecution by recording evidence of its witnesses and then the Trial Court had to determine the same against him whether he would be tried for both Sections of law or only for the offence of receiving stolen property---Under the circumstances, the applicant had successfully made out a good prima facie case for his release on bail in terms of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 538 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Shahnawaz VS State S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in bail order aretentative in nature, which shall not prejudice the case of either party at trial.

Shahnawaz vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 538 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ