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 Miscellaneous No. 1947/B of 1987, decided on 28th June, 1987.
---S.498--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.382--Bail, grant of--Disputed tractor purchased by accused and registered in his name--Civil litigation between parties as to ownership of tractor, pending--Seizure of tractor by police, stayed by Civil Court--Tractor, produced before police during investigation--Bail granted in circumstances.
Zafar Pasha Chaudhary for Petitioners.
Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State.
Altaf Hussain and 4 others have applied for the grant of bail in a case registered against them at police station Nawan Lahore, district Toba Tek Singh, vide F.I.R. No. 30, dated 31-3-1987, under section 382, P.P.C.
2. According to Abdul Ghaffar, complainant, he owned tractor No. 3057/FDIC On 16-3-158". at 11-00 a.m., he was transporting sugarcane in the tractor. When he reached near a Nalla at 2 p.m.; the petitioners excepting Riaz armed with deadly weapons confronted him and forcibly snatched his tractor from him. He lodged report about a fortnight later i.e on 31-3-1987 against the petitioners.
3. The investigation was still in progress when the petitioners applied for grate; of pre-arrest bail. This prayer was declined by Additional Sessions Judge on 26-4-1987. The petitioners were then arrested but, allowed bail by the Ilaqa Magistrate on 3-5-1987. The complainant applied for cancellation of their bail and Additional Sessions Judge vide his order, dated 10-6-1987 cancelled their bail saying that the police had not yet recovered the tractor and nothing positive towards investigation was done and that learned Magistrate had hurried up in granting concession of bail to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved thereby the instant petition has been filed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the State and also perused the record.
5. It is admitted before .me that the D.S.P., who investigated the case has found the petitioners innocent and recommended cancellation of the case on the ground that the tractor in question had been purchased by Altaf Hussain, petitioner, with loan-money obtained-from Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, which stands registered in his name and the officers of the bank had been seeing the tractor in question in possession of Altaf Hussain, petitioner, till March, 1987, therefore, the story of the complainant that he had purchased the tractor from Altaf Hussain, petitioner, was not established. It is further argued that Altaf Hussain, petitioner, has filed a civil suit and has obtained a stay order against seizure of the tractor in question by the police. However, learned Court has directed that as and when the police would summon the petitioner shall produce the tractor before the police. The Investigating Officer has admitted before me that the tractor was produced during investigation.
6. It is contended on behalf of the State that since the matter is being re-investigated by a higher police officer, therefore, the petitioners may not be granted bail till the present investigation is finalized
7 I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the fact that there exists documentary evidence that the tractor in question was purchased by Altaf Hussain, petitioner, with the money obtained on loan from the bank and that it stands registered in his name and that the parties are litigating in civil Court as to the ownership of the tractor in question, therefore, I feel inclined to allow this petition. The petitioners shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of A . C . /Duty Magistrate, Toba Tek Singh.
8. Before parting with this order, it may be observed that the trial Court allowed post-arrest bail to the petitioners on 31-5-1987 as on that date the police had found them innocent. This, however, was not the position when learned Additional Sessions Judge declined pre-arrest bail to the petitioners on 26-4-1987, therefore, obviously the Magistrate allowed bail after a material change in the circumstances had taken place since rejection of petitioners' pre-arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge.
S.A./A-119/L
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer