Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application 1176 of 1985, decided on 15th October, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Bail grant of‑‑Only incriminating evidence being that of recovery of necklace and extra judicial confession of co‑accused‑‑Necklace having not been put to regular identification test‑‑Necklace recovered two years after occurrence‑ Extra‑judicial confession having been retracted even by maker of it who was already or, bail‑‑Interim bail granted earlier was, therefore, confirmed in circumstances.

S.S. Shaikh for Applicant.

A.A. Muhammadally, Asstt. A.‑G for the State.

Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for the Complainant.

The admitted position in the case is that under section 302/34 P.P.C. the evidence against the applicant is two‑fold namely; First, gold necklaces was recovered from his possession and‑two, there is extra‑judicial confession of co‑accused. So far the recovery of necklace is concerned, it is admitted that it was not put to test nor was it identified by any witness in, a regular test held by the police. Moreover recovery was made about two years after the incident.

As for the extra‑judicial confession of co‑accused, even the) maker of the said confession has not stuck to it and the said co‑accused is already on bail. In these circumstances, Mr. A.A. Muhammadally, B A.A.‑G. has no objection to the confirmation of interim bail so also the learned counsel for the complainant.

Accordingly the interim bail granted earlier is confirmed on the same terms and conditions on which it was initially granted.

S.A. 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.