Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No. 285 of 1986, decided on 12th March, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 22‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324/452‑‑Bail‑ Explanation for delay in lodging first information report whether satisfactory yet to be determined‑‑Names of accused not appearing in first information report‑‑Thieves were unknown to persons who saw them and police not bothering to hold identification test to ascertain identity of thieves‑‑Evidence existing that accused had been picked out by persons who saw incident in identification test‑‑Witness claiming to have seen accused fleeing from complainant's house not conveying their names either to complainant or to any other witness‑‑Chhuri recovered from accused neither blood‑stained nor of a type for which licence necessary and therefore, of no consequence‑‑State having no objection to grant of bail‑‑Case of accused calling for further inquiry Bail granted.

Ghulam Sabir Niazi for Applicants.

Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.‑G. for the State.

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants Tariq and Aslam alongwith co‑accused Ashraf and Khalid have been challaned to face trial under section 22, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 324/452. P. P. C.

As per prosecution case three of the accused entered the house of the complainant Muhammad Ashraf Javaid at 10.00 a.m. when complainant himself was not in the house but his son Waqar Ashraf are some ladies were present in the house. It is alleged that on raising cries by Waqar Ashraf one of the thieves caused injuries to him finger of his hand. As soon as the people from neighbourhood responded to the cries thieves took to their heels.

The F.I.R. was lodged about ten hours from the occurrence., The only explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is that complainant was not present at the time of occurrence and after he returned home he was apprised of the facts and it was he who reported the matter to police. It is yet to be determined if his explanation is satisfactory. In any case the names of both the applicants do root appear in the F.I.R. Admittedly the thieves were unknown to the A persons who saw them. But strangely enough, as has been conceded by the learned A.A.‑G., the police did not bother to hold identification test to ascertain the identity of the thieves. Consequently there is no evidence that the applicants have been picked out by the persons who saw the incident in the identification test.

However, the learned A.A.‑G. has drawn my attention to the statement of Zafardin son of Akbar Khan who is said to have been attracted on cries. He claims to have identified three thieves namely, Tariq, Aslam and Muhammad Ashraf while they were fleeing from the complainant's house. There is, however, no indication that he conveyed their names either to the complainant or to any other witness.

The recovery of 'Chhuri' from applicant Tariq is also of not much consequence as it is neither blood‑stained nor is it of the type for which the licence is necessary. The learned A. A.‑G. has no objection to grant of bail to the applicants.

For above reasons the case of applicants calls for further enquiry and bail is allowed to both the applicants in the sum of Rs.15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) each and P.R. of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

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.