Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASIF MUMTAZ VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Sabihuddin Ahmed Title: MUHAMMAD ASIF MUMTAZ vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Bail Application No,415 of 1998 Date of Judgment:1998-06-17 Reported As: 1999 P Cr. L J 283 Result: Bail granted
Judgment ORDER ' The applicant is charged with an offence under section 392/34, P.P.C. On the allegation of snatching a motorcycle. According to the F.I.R. The informant Muhammad Siddiq came out on Main Road Bazar on his motorcycle when two young boys stopped him and snatched away his motorcycle by force on the point of arms, a Police Mobile was moving in the area and on cries and potation of the informant the applicant and co-accused started riding on snatched motorcycle were chased. The motorcycle slipped and the applicant got injured and was arrested. His co- accused ran away. An application for bail was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate and IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, hence this bail application has been preferred. ' Mr. Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant contended that no identification parade was held, no weapons were recovered and that the requirement of section 103, Cr.P.C. Were not complied with. On the other hand, Mr. Sharafat Ali Khan, learned counsel for the State argued that the applicant was arrested red-handed at the potation of the informant who also signed Mashirnama of arrest. In the circumstances, there was an adequate evidence against the applicant and he was not entitled to the concession of bail. I am not impressed by first contention of Mr. Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui and Mr. Sharafat Ali Khan appears right in contending that when the arrest itself was caused on the spot at the potation of the informant no subsequent identification test was necessary. However, there appears substance in the contention that in the absence of recovery of any weapon from the applicant and the fact that the alleged co-accused was never arrested it could be safely assumed that the matter required further inquiry. Moreover, though the offence is alleged to have been committed in the Main Bazar at 4-50 p.m. No independent witness of the locality has been acted as Mashir and no
---
## Page 2
explanation for non-compliance with the provision of section 103, Cr.P.C. Has been furnished. Mr. Sharafat Khan submitted that the Mashimama is signed by the informant himself, but I do not think that this would be sufficient compliance with the requirement of section 103, which postulates independent evidence so as to exclude the possibility of false involvement. For the foregoing reasons, I would grant bail to the applicant upon furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He will be released from custody if not required in any other case. All observations made above are tentative and will not prejudice the trial