Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUBASHAR HUSSAIN VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 1270
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
MUBASHAR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3606‑B of 1987, decided on 24th November, 1987.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.411‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Complainant as well as eye‑witnesses failed to identify petitioner in identification parade‑‑Name of petitioner was not mentioned in F.I.R.‑‑Alleged offence of recovery of stolen motor‑cycle punishable under S.411, P.P.C. did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances.
Ch. Liaqat Ali Sindhu for Petitioner.
Mrs. Agnus Tabasum for the State.
ORDER
This is an application for grant of bail to Mubashar Hussain petitioner in a case under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at P.S. Daska, vide F.I.R. No. 667, dated 18‑9‑1986.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and two others forcibly removed motor‑cycle from the possession of the complainant which was subsequently recovered from the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R.; that he was not identified by the complainant and the eye‑witnesses in the identification parade and that the alleged offence of the recovery of stolen motor‑cycle does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that as for offence punishable under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, the complainant as well as the eye‑witnesses could not identify the petitioner in the parade held for the identification of the culprits; that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and that the alleged offence of the recovery of stolen motor‑cycle punishable under section 411, P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause‑of section 497, Cr.P.C.
For what has been said above, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C . /Duty Magistrate, Daska.
H. B. T./M‑562/L Bail granted.