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.
Criminal Bail Application No. 14 of 1986, decided on 2nd March, 1987.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 364 &365‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.17(3)‑‑Bail‑‑Only incriminating evidence against accused was that of their identification secured in jail‑‑Case falling within purview of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C.‑‑Bail granted.
1984 P Cr. L J 3229 and 3442 ref.
G.M. Soomro for Applicants.
Amanullah Qureshi for the State.
This is a bail application on behalf of the two applicants booked by the Gambat Police Station in Crime No. 79 of 1986 for the offences a/s 364/365, P.P.C. 17(3) of Hudood Ordinance 1979 and 13 D of Arms Ordinance. In consequence to a F.I.R. registered on 13‑4‑1986 by S.I.P./S.H.O. Rashid Ahmed Qureshi of Police Station, Gambat on behalf of the State. The allegation as disclosed in the F.I.R. is that some days prior to the lodging of report Mukhtiar Ahmed Arain and Zararuddin had gone to Pir‑Jo‑Goth on Motorcycle when on the way they reached at Shakh No. 5 at about 7‑00 p.m. six persons were found standing there and kindnapped them alongwith motorcycle. The purpose stated in the F.I.R. is to extort money from them. The police on receipt of this information alongwith the relatives of Zafaruddin and Mukhtiar started making enquiries and it is stated in the F.I.R. that the relations of the kidnapped persons extended no co‑operation nor they revealed the facts and were not prepared to lodge the report. Hence the offence being cognizable the report on behalf of the State was lodged by the S.H.O. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that only evidence against the applicants is of identification who according to the prosecution were secured from the Central Jail, Khairpur on 27‑9‑1986. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants had remained in police custody after the recovery from the Central Jail for nine days and the identification test was held after one month and 10 days of lodging of report. 1t is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that in the circumstances of the present case during the time when two applicants were in custody of police. The possibility of their having been shown to the two abductees cannot be over ruled. Thus after as such delay, identification alone would not be sufficient to connect them with the commission of the crime. The learned A.A.‑G. made a statement that there is no indication as to when and in what crime the applicants were arrested and kept in Central Jail, Khairpur. In support of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants the reliance is placed on the unreported decisions of this Court Cr.B.A. No. 6 of 1986) and Cr.B.A. No. 119 of 1986 as well as 1984 P Cr. L J 3229 and 3442. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.A.‑G. and having gone through the investigation papers through assistance of the counsels. The only incriminating evidence is of identification for the present, the case of the applicants comes within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants has also stated that excepting this piece of evidence of identification there is no other evidence against the appellants. In view of facts and circumstances of the case I grant bail to the applicants in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Consequently the Cr. Bail Application No. 14 of 1987 is disposed of as granted.
M.Y.H./A‑73/K Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer