Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL JABBAR VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Mushir AlamJai Jai Veshno Mange Ram
2008 M L D 835
2008 M L D 835
[Karachi]
Before Mushir Alam, J
ABDUL JABBAR---Applicant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.170 of 2007, decided on 16th July, 2007.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.504/34---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was apprehended thirteen days after the occurrence when he was nominated in the crime by the witness in his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Accused was not put to the identification test---No recovery was stated to have been effected---Challan had been submitted wherein accused was shown as absconder---Since no plausible explanation for the delayed recording of the statements of the witnesses was recorded and no recovery had been effected, accused had made out a case of further enquiry---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Jai Jai Veshno Mange Ram for Applicant.
Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, State Counsel.
ORDER
MUSHIR ALAM, J.---Applicant Abdul Jabbar is nominated in Crime No.25 of 2006, Police Station New Faujdari Shikarpur, for offence punishable under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, sections 504, 34, P.P.C.
The allegation against the accused persons is of barging in the oil mill, seizing control of the inmates and by show of force robbing the valuables from the possession of the complainant. Only accused Ghulam Abbas is nominated in the F.I.R. other persons are not named.
The alleged incident took place on 10-2-2006. Present applicant was apprehended on 23-2-2006, when he was nominated in the crime by the witness whose 161, Cr.P.C. statement was recorded on 23rd February 2006. The applicant was not put to the identification test. No recovery is stated to have effected. Challan has been submitted on 25-2-2006, wherein applicant was shown as absconder. Since there is no plausible explanation for the delayed recording of the statements and no recovery has been effected, the applicant has made out case of further enquiry and accordingly he is extended bail but subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
H.B.T./A-22/K Bail granted.