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 Bail Application No. 436 of 1985, decided on 16th May, 1985.
-----S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 394/34‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(3)‑ Bail, grant of‑‑Main accused already granted bail whereas petitioner only vicariously liable for sharing common intention with him‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstance.
Shahadat Awan for Applicant.
A.G. Manghi, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Applicant and his co‑accused are being tried for offence under section 394/34, P.P.C. read with section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The case of the prosecution is that applicant and his co‑accused Badruddin robbed complainant of his Motor‑cycle and inflicted injuries to him on the day of incident. Co‑accused Badruddin has been released on bail by the order of this Court dated 31‑3‑1985. Bail plea for the present applicant Rafique is urged on the ground that even according to the case of the prosecution main culprit is Badruddin, who asked for lift from the complainant stopped his Motorcycle put his hand on the ignition key and also caused injuries to the complainant. On the other hand the case against the present applicant Fariq is that he happened to be arrested at the spot and was taken to the police station by the witnesses. In the circumstances it is the case of the prosecution that present applicant is vicariously liable for sharing common intention with the main accused. It is also stated that the present applicant and co‑accused who has been released on bail were not previously known to the complainant and complainant gave their names in F.I.R. as he heard them calling each other. In the circumstances it was necessary for the prosecution to have the present applicant identified by complainant in an identification test which has not been held.
For the facts and reason stated above, it can be said that this is the case which needs further enquiry. I admit applicant to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety and P.R. in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
S.G.D.
Bail allowed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer