Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
----S- 497--Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(3)--Bail--Accused picked up properly by independent person with whom they had no enmity--Accused charged with henious offence--Revolver and stolen property recovered--No made out for bail--Bail application dismissed.
Sardar Muhammad Ishaq for Applicants.
A.A. Muhammadally, Asstt. Advocate-General for the State.
This order will dispose of Criminal Bail No. 267 of 1984 and Cr. Bail No. 271 of 1984.
Applicants are facing trial in a Sessions Case No. 320/84 under section 17(3) Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, 1979. The prosecution's allegations against the applicants are that they armed with Revolvers came to, the Cement Depot 6f one Muhammad Ishqeen and forcibly took Hs.35,000 and ran away in a Car No. 168-400. Their bail application have been rejected bay Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi.
Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate for the applicants has contended that co-accused Aftab Ahmad has been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of Aftab Ahmed. He has further argued that provisions regarding ratio of dummies in the identification test have not been complied with.
Mr. A.A. Muhammadally has opposed the bail applications and stated that both the applicants have-been picked in identification parade. There is no enmity between the complainant and the accused. He has also pointed out that two daggers, one revolver. Clips and Rs.3,000 have been recovered from applicant Zulfiqar whereas .32 bore revolver and stolen money has been recovered from applicant Sajjad.
In the present case, the accused/applicants have been picked up properly by independent person with whom they have no enmity. The contention of Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaq, that number of dummies was less in the identification test cannot be taken into consideration at this stage and any observation made to this effect will prejudice the case of the prosecution. I will leave it open to the trial Court to consider when case proceeds. Presently they are charged with heinous offence. The revolver and the stolen money have also been recovered. They have properly been picked by the complainant party and no case is made out for bail, therefore, bail applications are rejected.
M.Y.H. Bail refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer