Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No.747 of 1984, decided on 1st August, 1984.

-‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 411‑‑Bail‑ Theft‑‑First information report lodged with delay‑‑No description of accused given in F.I.R.‑‑Accused remaining in custody of Police for two weeks after arrest but no identification parade took place‑‑Case of accused, as urged by his counsel and conceded by counsel for State, not falling under section 13 (3) of Ordinance, VI of 1979 but falling under section 411, Penal Code and calling for further inquiry‑‑Bail granted in circumstances.

Salamullah v. State P L D 1984 Kar. 73 rel.

Qurban Ali Chohan for Applicant.

A.A. Mohomedally, A.A.‑G. for the State.

This is an application under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. The applicant is facing trial under section 17, Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

Briefly the facts are that the case property which is a car was stolen and taken away by the applicant alongwith three others on 9‑8‑1983. The incident was first reported at Police Post at 12.10 a.m. on 10‑8‑1983. Later on F.I.R. was lodged at Latifabad at 8.10 a.m. on the same date.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. of about four hours He further contends that no Registration number of the car or its chassis number was given in the F.I.R. there is no description of the applicant or the other three co‑accused given in the F.I.R. The applicant was arrested on 16‑6‑1984 who remained in the custody of police for about two weeks but no identification test took place. Although the car was released on 26‑8‑1983 to the complainant by the Sessions Judge after notice to the police.

Learned counsel contends that in these circumstances of the case the applicant cannot be said to have committed an offence under section 17 (3). At best the offence will fall under section 411, P.P.C. Reliance is placed on a case reported as Salamullah v. State P L D 1984 Kar. 73. Learned A.A.‑G. also concedes the above position and says that it is a case for further inquiry. I also find that the authority cited above, applies to the facts of the present case, I therefore, grant bail to the applicant. He be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.15,000 and P.R. Bond in like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

M.Y.H. Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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