Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS Respondent: STATE
2001 Y L R 1084
2001 Y L R 1084
[Karachi]
Before Amanullah Abbasi, J
MUHAMMAD SALEEM---Applicant
versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.40 and Miscellaneous Application No.47 of 1999, heard on 18th January, 1999.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497---Penal Code (It2V of 1860), Ss.379/411---Bail, grant of---Accused returned watches which he had purchased as soon as he came to know that those were stolen ones---Accused was not involved in the theft of the watches, but he had only purchased from the persons who had committed theft---Accused was granted bail in circumstances.
Fazal Mehmood Sherwani for Applicant.
Sharafat Ali Khan for the State.
ORDER
1. Allowed.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Sharafat Ali Khan, Advocate for the State.
Learned Sessions Judge Malir Karachi in his order dated 6-1-1999 has mentioned as under:--
"A huge quantity of 60 watches, which were stolen in this case, have been recovered from the accused/applicant, the contention of the accused/applicant that after coming to know that these watches were stolen watches of the complainant, he had returned the same to him, therefore, he is entitled to the grant of bail, is not tenable, because he had purchased these watches from the accused who are employed at the Airport and these persons apparently were not involved in the business of watches, as such he had taken these watches from those accused with mala fide intention. Thus, the accused/ applicant has played very important role in the commission of theft of such a huge quantity of watches from the very important place, i.e. Airport. Such -acts are real menace for our society and the accused involved in a such exceptional and extraordinary crimes are not entitled to the concession of bail. I, therefore, reject this bail application. "
Learned Advocate for the applicant has requested for bail on the ground that the F.I.R. is delayed, name of applicant is not mentioned in the F.I.R. The alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The applicant is a shop keeper who did not know the background and had purchased the watches without knowing that these were the stolen watches. As soon as he came to know about the facts he had returned the watches.
Learned State counsel does not oppose the grant of bail to applicant as it is a case of further inquiry.
The applicant had purchased the stolen watches but had returned the same as soon as he came to know about the facts. He is not involved in the theft of watches but he had only purchased the watches from the persons who had committed theft. Since he has already returned the watches I exercise my powers/discretion in his favour and grant him bail subject to furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Nazir of this Court.
H.B.T./M-200/K ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.