Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 60‑R of 1981, decided on 22nd November, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 9‑9‑1981 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7 of 1981).

‑‑‑ S. 497/498‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 379‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 9 Bail‑Delay in lodging of F. I. R.‑Only eye‑witness in support of charge was one who stated that he (witness) had stolen property at instance of accused‑Held, guilt of accused required further inquiry to fix criminal responsibility‑Bail confirmed in circumstances.

S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Akhundzada Bahrawar Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Basharatullah Khan, Assistant Advocate‑General (N.W. F.P.) for the State.

Respondent No. 2 in person.

Date of hearing: 22nd November 1983.

A

report was lodged against the petitioner by Abdul Hameed on 1‑10‑1980 at Police Station Dabgari, Peshawar, under section 379, P.P.C./section 9 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for having allegedly stolen an Iron Bar fixed in a lane any the Municipal Corporation, Peshawar. The petitioner was admitted to bail before his arrest which was confirmed by the learned Addi tional Sessions Judge, Peshawar vide his order dated 4‑11‑1980 on the ground that it was a case for further inquiry "as to whether the accused had actually removed the bar or it has been removed by some other persons". On complainant's application, however, the learned Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, by his order dated 9‑9‑1981 the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled.

2. In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner moved this Court for leave to appeal and, on 14‑4‑1981 this Court granted him interim bail. It was ordered that the main petition. be laid before the Court for disposal. Today we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate‑General on behalf of the State. It is concede before us by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General that there is some delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. and the only eye‑witness in support of the main charge is Lalai who seems to have stated that he bad removed the iron bar in question at the instance of the petitioner. In these circumstances it seems to us that the guilt of the petitioner require to le further inquiry at the trial to fix the criminal responsibility on him. He is, there fore, entitled to remain on bail.

3. We, therefore, convert this petition into appeal and confirmed the bail in the terms already granted to him by this Court.

M. Z. M. Bail confirmed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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