Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD KHALID VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Zafar Pasha ChaudharyMrs. Saeeda Asif,Kanwar Riaz Ahmad
2004 P Cr
2004 P Cr. L J 229
[Lahore]
Before Zafar Pasha Chaudhary, J
MUHAMMAD KHALID---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1585/B of 1997, decided on 16th October, 1997.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-----
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.381-A---Bail, grant of-- Prosecution story had revealed that during checking, two persons were seen coming on motorcycle who were in receipted by the police and their motorcycle was found to be stolen property---Accused was stated to be riding at the back seat of motorcycle---Sitting at the back seat of motorcycle was not sufficient to prove the accused guilty unless there was some other evidence connecting him with commission of crime---Case against accused had become that of further inquiry---Accused was stated to be previously non-convict and he was not required in any criminal case---Accused was a young boy working as an Assistant in workshop-- Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Mrs. Saeeda Asif for Petitioner.
Kanwar Riaz Ahmad for the State.
Date of hearing: 16th October, 1997.
ORDER
Submits that the petitioner is involved as accused person in case F.I.R. No.84 of 1997 registered with Police Station City Dera Ghazi Khan on 8-3-1999 under section 381-A, P.P.C. According to the allegation during checking two persons were seen coming on motorcycle which was intercepted by the police and the motorcycle was found to be stolen property of case F.I.R. No.84 of 1997. The petitioner is stated to be riding at the back seat. It is argued that there is no presumption that a man who was sitting on the back seat of the motorcycle driven by some one else had the knowledge that motorcycle was stolen, therefore, in absence of any further evidence on the point the petitioner cannot be hauled up as culprit.
2. Without making any comments on the submissions the allegation that he was sitting at the back seat of the motorcycle itself is not sufficient to prove him guilty unless there is some other evidence connecting with commission of the crime. The case, therefore, becomes that of further inquiry. The petitioner is stated to be previously non convict nor he is required in any criminal case. He is a young boy working as an Assistant in the workshop.
3. This petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-2409/L Bail granted.