Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NASIR SHAH VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Malik Haq NawazNazir Ahmed and Jahangir Shah
2019 P Cr. L J Note 75 [Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court] Before Malik Haq Nawaz, J NASIR SHAH---Petitioner Versus The STATE---Respondent Bail Application No. 220 of 2018, decided on 7th December, 2018.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 457---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 22---Lurking house trespass or house breaking by night in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment or theft---Bail, grant of---Validity---First Information Report showed that petitioner was caught red-handed by the owner of the house, when he (petitioner) jumped into the compound of the complainant but there were material contradictions in the statements of police officials who launched the FIR---Mode and manner of the arrest of the petitioner was also at variance---Intention to commit theft would be determined at the time of trial after recording of some evidence---Bail was allowed to the petitioner, in circumstances.
Nazir Ahmed and Jahangir Shah for Petitioner.
Dy. Advocate-General for the State.
Date of hearing: 7th December, 2018.
ORDER
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---Through the instant petition bearing Criminal Misc. No. 220/2018, the petitioner Nasir Shah has sought post-arrest bail under section 497, Cr.P.C. in case registered against him under section 457, P.P.C. and section 22 of E.H.O., 1979 vide FIR No. 22/2018 of Police Station Singul.
2. The concession of bail was refused to the petitioner by the learned trial Court vide judgment/order dated 12-10-2018, hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is false and the petitioner has been involved in the case falsely in collusion of the complainant with the local police. The learned counsel further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the police officials and the complainant. The provisions of section 457, P.P.C. are not attracted in the instant case. The petitioner is first offender and no more required for the purpose of investigation.
4. The learned Dy. Advocate General opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner/accused was caught red handed and was handed over to local police. There has been no previous ill will or anomisty between complainant/accused, which may be a reason for false implication of the petitioner/accused in this heinous case.
5. It is alleged in the FIR the petitioner/accused was caught red handed by the owner of the house, when he jumped into the compound of the complainant but there are material contradictions in the statement of police officials/FIR lodger and the mode and manner of the arrest of the petitioner is also at variance. The intention to commit theft will be determined at the time of trial after recording of some evidence. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds of Rs.200,000/- (Two lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate at District Ghizer.
6. The Criminal Misc. No. 220/2018 is disposed accordingly.
MQ/237/GB Bail granted.