Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IQBAL ALIAS BALA VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 2244
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias BALA‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent.
Criminal Miscellaneous No.729 B of 1988, decided on 14th March, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S, 409/380/411‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Allegations if accepted at its face value only a case under S.411, P.P.C. was made out against petitioner‑‑Petitioner in jail for the last eight months and no more required for investigation‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances.
Mian Abdul Latif for Petitioner.
Nisar Khalil for the State.
ORDER
This is an application for grant of bail to Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala petitioner in case under section 409/380/411, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Gujranwala City vide F.I.R. No.453/1987.
2. The allegations are that the petitioner and Munir Ahmad Chowkidar dishonestly removed Card Box from the National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd., Trunk Bazar, Gujranwala. During the investigation the stolen card box and a sum of Rs.21,000 were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. accepted at its face value, no case punishable under section 409 P.P.C. 'is made out‑and at the worst, the offence if any committed by the petitioner may fall within the purview of section 480 P.P.C. or section 411, P.P.C. which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel for the State has opposed this application.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the stolen property was never entrusted to the petitioner; that there is no direct evidence of the commission of theft of the Card Box and cash, by the petitioner; that the recovery of the stolen property may fall within the ambit of section 411, P.P.C. which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner is in jail since 14‑7‑1987 and is no more required for investigation.
For what has been said above, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. (City)/Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala.
S.G.D./M‑640/L Bail granted.