Find a Lawyer

‑‑S. 498‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused in jail for last two months‑‑Only independent witness, who himself was stated to be looted in occurrence denying any such incident in an affidavit‑‑Complainant not knowing accused previously‑‑No identification parade held‑‑As to how name of accused appeared in F.I.R., was yet to be resolved‑‑Case of further inquiry, held, was made out‑‑Bail granted in circumstances.

Raja Muhammad Sabir for Petitioner.

Muhammad Sharif Khokhar for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No. 3/6, dated 5‑1‑1983, Police Station Chiniot, District Jhang registered on the statement of Farzand Ali.

2. Briefly, the allegations are that the complainant who was driving his tractor was stopped by the driver of Car No. MI/3765 who was coming from the opposite direction near the Toll Tax Post. The driver of the car who was later identified to be the petitioner, came out of the car and asked the complainant to hand him over whatever was with him. When the complainant resisted, the petitioner gave him 2‑3 slaps and thereafter took out Rs. 175 from his pocket alongwith the driving licence. The occurrence was seen by Muhammad Hafiz and Abdul Jabbar, the employee of the District Council posted at the Toll Tax Post. The petitioner is alleged to have snatched Rs. 15 from Abdul Jabbar also.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had filed a writ petition for registration of a case against some Sub -Inspector and other officials posted at Police Station Chiniot and that they have got him falsely involved in this case. He has contended that Abdul Jabbar, the only independent witness has in sworn affidavit, placed on the file of this petition, stated that no such occurrence had taken place. He has also averred in the affidavit that the petitioner had not snatched any money from him. It is further contended that section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 is not applicable as the amount of Rs. 175 is less than the Nisab amount and even if the sum of Rs. 15 said to have been snatched from Abdul Jabbar P.W. is added, the position remains at the same level.

4. Learned counsel for the State has controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner is involved in five other cases and that he is an habitual offender.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the Bar that the petitioner has already been acquitted in four of the cases and that all the cases pertain to the year 1980 and thereafter, which is exactly the period when the petitioner had developed strained relations with the police.

6. I have considered the arguments of the parties. The petitioner is in jail for the last two months. The only independent witness, namely Abdul Jabbar has already in a sworn affidavit denied that any such occurrence had taken place. His statement is material in view of the fact that he himself was stated to have been looted. The complainant has not mentioned in the F.I.R. that he knew the petitioner earlier. No identification parade was held and it is yet to be resolved as to how the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the F.I.R.

In view of the above, a case of further enquiry has been made out. The petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Chiniot.

S.A./I‑8/L 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.