Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 352-B of 1981, decided on 18th February 1981.

-- S. 497--Bail, grant of-Petitioners accused of Haraabah under S. 17 of Ordinance VI of 1979, and allegedly identified by com plainant and witnesses, victim of crime in light of lamp of a bicycle -Petitioners not named in F.I.R. but identified by complainant and witnesses during Police custody in connection with an arms case-Cases against petitioners, held, one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr. P. C.-petitioners allowed bail in circumstances Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (Vi of 1979); S. 17.

Muhammad Rafiq Bhatti for Petitioners.

Nemo for the State,

Mahmood Ahmad Sub-Inspector S. H. O. Raiwind has produced the relevant file. The petitioners were arrested on 30th November, 1980 on the charge of Haraabah under section 17 of Ordinance VI of 1979 in case registered at Police Station Raiwind on 29th November, 1980 on the report by Subhan complainant. Application for their release on bail was rejected by learned Sessions Judge. Kasur with the view that no reasons as to why the petitioners were arrested had been set-forth. There were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners were guilty of the said offence.

2. The culprits said to have been identified by the informant and the remaining two witnesses victim of the crime in the light of lamp of a bicycle, were not named in the first information report which was suggestive of the fact that culprits were not previously known to the complainant and the witnesses. The petitioners were arrested by the notice next day, on the charges under the Arms Ordinance. Thereafter, the complainant and the witnesses had identified them during police custody without their having been subjected to identification test. Supplementary statements of the complainant and the witnesses were recorded by the investigating officer under section 16, Cr. P. C. In the circumstances, there is no escape to the contention that the case against the petitioners was that of further enquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C. Additionally, the further contention that to view of value of the stolen property falling to the share of each of the two petitioners, and their alleged co-accused application of section 17 of Ordinance read in the light of section 6 of the Ordinance which fixes the value of 'Nisab', should be a moot point appears to have a substance in it. Application accepted. The petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000 (five thousand) with two sureties each with personal bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner (Saddar/Duty Magistrate, Kasur.

Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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