Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 387-B of 1980, decided on 16th February, 1981.
--- S. 497-Bail - Theft allegedly taking place in broad day light in a most thickly populated bazar but not a single resident or shopkeeper supporting prosecution version of occurrence rather giving affidavits that complainant himself removed his articles from his cabin and falsely implicated petitioner at instance of landlords owner of shop-A case for grant of bail, held, made out in circum stances.
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner.
Raheel Akhtar for the State...
Khurshid Alam petitioner who is involved in a case under sections. 448. 380 and 452, P. P. C. has moved this petition for anticipatory bail. He is not named as an accused in the F.I.R. wherein it is stated that on the morning of 22nd December. 1980 Imran Khurshid (son of the petitioner) broke open the lock of the almirah-type shop of Allah Ditta complainant and committed theft of his sewing-machines, stitched and unstitched clothes, a ceiling fan and other articles. The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by Altaf Hussain and Muhammad Siddiq, P. Ws.'
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Imran Khurshid, aged 7/8 years son of the petitioner. was named as an accused but he was let off by the police and the petitioner was involved on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant subsequently made by him. He further submits that the alleged occurrence took place in Bano Market. Bhawana Bazar, Faisalabad, the most populated area of the city, but not a single resident or shopkeeper of the said bazar has supported the prosecution version of the occurrence and both the eye witnesses named in the F.I.R. are not even the residents of the city. He further submits that civil litigation between the parties is going on and the petitioner has been falsely implicated on that score.
The learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has not joined the investigation and the recovery of the stolen articles is yet to be effected. He further submits that the complainant was under .the bona fide impression, that the name of the petitioner is Imran Khurshid, therefore, he named him as such in the F. I. R.
3. I have gone through the relevant material. The occurrence alle gedly took place in the brad-day light in a most thickly populated bazar. It is admitted that till this day not a single resident or shopkeeper of the bazar has supported the prosecution version of the occurrence. The A. S. I. states that Altaf Hussain P. W. is a resident of Chak No. 7 Kobala and the other witness namely Muhammad Siddiq, is a resident of Nazimabad Colony situate at a distance of three furlongs from the place of occurrence. A perusal of the record further shows that as many as twenty-tree shop-keepers of Bano Market where the occurrence took place, gave affidavits tit the investigating officer that Allah Ditta complainant had himself removed his articles from his cabin and had falsely implicated the petitioner at the instance of the landlord/owner of the shop. In the circumstances. I feel that a case for the grant of bail is made out. The interim bail allowed to the petitioner on 9th February 1981 is, there fore, confirmed He has been directed to join the investigation if and when required.
Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer