Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL SATTAR VS Respondent: THE STATE
1999 M L D 2581
1999 M L D 2581
[Karachi]
Before Rasheed A. Razvi, J
ABDUL SATTAR---Applicant
versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.1091 of 1996, decided on 8th July, 1996.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-C---Bail, grant of ---Challan was produced in Trial Court---Accused was not named in F.I.R. and. was shown to be absconder---Only evidence against accused was statement of main accused-- Main accused was already on bail---Case of accused, thus, was a case of further enquiry---Accused was granted bail in circumstances.
Maula Bux and 8 others v. The State and 2 others 1977 SCMR 292; Muhammad Mushtaq v. The State 1995 MLD 1755; Muhammad Imranullah v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 167 and The State v. Malik Mukhtar Ahmed Awan 1991 SCMR 322 ref.
S. Mahmood Alam Rizvi for Applicant.
Shaikh Azizur Rehman for the State.
ORDER
According to the F.I.R. lodged by Inspector Khair Muhammad Chandio, who at the relevant time was posted at C.I.A. Saddar Karachi, has stated in his 154, Cr.P.C. statement that on 13-4 1994 at about 20.45 hours while he was patrolling with the police party, he was informed through special informer that one person is selling counterfeit U.S. Dollars at Pan Mandi, Karachi. Accordingly in the presence of two mashirs he raided the scene of vardat and upon search of accused Muhammad Ali recovered counterfeit U.S. Dollars total fourty notes each of hundred U.S. Dollars. In such circumstances, the above-F.I.R. was lodged.
On 27-4-1994, the prosecution filed charge-sheet before the Court of Sessions Judge, South, wherein the present accused was shown in red ink in Column No.2 as "absconder". .
I have heard Mr. S. Mahmood Alain Rizvi Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Shaikh Azizur Rehman learned counsel for the State and have also perused the police papers.
Mr. S. Mahmood Alam Rizvi has strenuously contended that the main accused namely Muhammad Ali who has been named in the F.I.R. and has been attributed specific role has been granted bail by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, South vide its order, dated 5-5-1994 in Criminal Bail No.172 of 1994. He has filed certified copy of the same. I have gone through this order. The learned Judge granted on the grounds, inter alia, that the alleged offence falls under section 489-C, P.P.C. and not under section 489-B, as the said accused was allegedly found selling U.S. Dollars and that there is no allegation of printing and forging the said foreign currency notes. It is further argued by Mr. S. Muhammad Alam Rizvi that except the statement of main accused there is no other evidence available with the prosecution to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence. According to the learned counsel, the present applicant/accused is not liable to be convicted on the statement of the other co- accused. He has placed reliance on the case of Maula Bux and 8 others v. The State and 2 others (1977 SCMR 292). He has also stated that the accused has not been named in the F. I. R.
On the question of abscondence he has referred to the case of Muhammad Mushtaq v. The State (1995 MLD 1755); Muhammad Imranullah v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 167) and the case of the State v. Malik Mukhtar Ahmed Awan (1991 SCMR 322). In the last reported case, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme court of Pakistan that it is not an absolute rule that a fugitive under no circumstances be enlarged on bail. In the case of Muhammad Mushtaq and Muhammad Imranullah this Court granted bail to alleged absconder on the grounds inter alia, that they were entitled for such privilege on merits of the case. In view of the above factual and legal position Mr. Shaikh Azizur Rehman, advocate appearing for the State has extended his no objection to the grant of this bail.
I have considered the arguments of Mr. Mahmood Alam. There is no other piece of evidence against the present accused except the statement of main accused who was arrested from the spot. In the bail application, it is averred that the present applicant was always available on the address given. He has also filed documents to substantiate this ground. I am, therefore, of the considered view that this is a fit case of further enquiry and that the applicant is entitled for bail.
In view of above discussion, I grant this bail application to the applicant/accused namely Abdul Sattar son of Abdullah, he shall be released upon furnishing one solvent surety of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Q.M.H./A-271/K Bail granted.