Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1661/B of 1985, decided on 17th July, 1985.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--

---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34--Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17--Bail. refusal of--Number of accused given in F.I.R. was two -but immediately after recording F.I.R. first informant making a supplementary statement wherein he disclosed number of culprits as three--On very day of occurrence one prosecution witness making statement in which he alleged that he had identified accused--Accused having been introduced as offender on the very day of occurrence, was not required to be identified--Material available on record, connected accused with commission of offences falling within prohibitory clause--Bail declined in circumstances.

R.A. Awan for Petitioner.

Khalil Ramdey, Additional Advocate-General and Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State.

Ghulam Bari Saleemi for the Complainant.

Date of hearing : 17th July, 1985.

Muhammad Shahid Iqbal petitioner, who is involved in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. and under section 17 of the Offence against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, arising out of F.I.R, No. 135, dated 12-3-1984, registered at Police Station Gowalmandi has sought to be released on bail.

2. It has been contended that the petitioner has not been named as a culprit in the F.I.R. He was confined in the jail for more than one month for the purpose of identification but no identification parade was held. It has further been urged that no recovery has been made from him. It has also been pleaded that according to the contents of the F.[.R. there were two culprits but the challan has been submitted against three persons and that besides the two real culprits the petitioner who is innocent has been falsely involved due to enmity with the complainant party and the local police.

3. It is to be noted that immediately after the recording of the F.I. R. , the first informant made a supplementary statement wherein he disclosed the number of culprits as three. It is also evident from the records of investigation that on the very day of occurrence, i.e. 12-3-1984, Muhammad Idrees, a prosecution witness, made a statement that one of the three culprits, was identified by him as Shahid Iqbal, the present petitioner. In the above circumstances, Shahid Iqbal as an offender in the case was introduced on the very day of occurrence by an eye-witness and, therefore, he was not required to be identified.

4. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that in fact the case-diary relating to the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., alleged to have been made by Muhammad Idrees, is a forged one and that it has been fabricated subsequently.

5. This contention cannot be gone into at this stage. In view o the material available on the records of investigation, the petitioner stands connected with the commission of offences- falling within the propitiatory clause. His plea for bail is, therefore, declined.

H. A. K.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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