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. 740‑M of 1986, decided on 20th January, 1987.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Art. i7‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused involved in four more cases Out of four cases, accused discharged in one, bailed out in two, one of which pertains to offence under S. 411, P.P.C.‑‑Accused admitted to bail in circumstances.
‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Art. 17‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused involved in three cases‑‑Twenty‑three other cases registered against accused in different police stations in same city‑‑Accused declared as proclaimed offender‑‑ Bail refused in circumstances.
R.A. Awan for Petitioners.
Aurangzeb for the State.
Date of hearing: 20th January, 1987.
Nur Ahmad and Sh. Muhammad Ashraf petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them under Article 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2124‑B of 1986 previously filed by them, was dismissed by this Court on 12‑8‑1986 on the ground that they were involved in Cases Nos. 242 of 1985 P.S. Sadar Multan, 234 of 1985 P.S. Khanewal, 66 of 1985 P.S. Harapa and in three cases of P.S. Gambar, District Larkana.
2. The fresh ground urged for bail by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in Case No. 242 of 1985 both the petitioners have been discharged and in the other two cases both of them have been bailed out and that they are not accused in any case pertaining to P.S. Gambar.
3. On 10‑12‑1986 the Investigating Officer made a statement that Muhammad Ashraf petitioner is involved in four other cases and Nur Ahmad petitioner is a proclaimed offender in ten other cases. Today he has produced a list of twenty‑three cases registered at various police stations at Karachi in which Nur Ahmad petitioner is involved. So far as Muhammad Ashraf petitioner is concerned, he states that he is involved only in the aforesaid three other cases. Certified copy of the order, dated 3‑4‑1986 (Annexure 'E') has been placed on the file shows that he was discharged in Case No. 242 of 1985. In Case No. 68 of 1985 he has been admitted to bail by the High Court Multan Bench. The learned counsel for the petitioners states at the Bar that in Case No. 234 of 1985 Ashraf petitioner is charged with section 411, C.P.C. and he has been allowed bail by the Illaqa Magistrate. In the circumstances, a case for the enlargement of Muhammad Ashraf petitioner is made out. I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount the satisfaction of the trial Court.
4. The case of Nur Ahmad petitioner stands on a different footing. He is involved in aforesaid three cases plus twenty‑three cases registered at various police stations of Karachi. A report made by the Inspector of Police, A.R.D. C.I.A., Karachi, shows that he is an absconder in all those cases. In the circumstances, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. His prayer is, therefore, declined.
The learned counsel submits that a direction be issued to be learned trial Judge to dispose of the case expeditiously. The learned trial Judge is directed to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the case as early as possible.
S.A./N‑18/L Petition partly accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer