Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL KARIM VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Wahid Bux BrohiAli Nawaz Ghanghro,Ali Azhar Tunio
2003 Y L R 2674
2003 Y L R 2674
[Karachi]
Before Wahid Bux Brohi, J
ABDUL KARIM and 3 others---Applicants
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 196 of 2003, decided on 7th May, 2003.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
---Ss. 497(2) & 190---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380/409/34/120-B---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Entire property was secured from one of the accused persons during the investigation--Challan was submitted in Court showing accused persons in Coiumn No. 2 as they were found to be innocent, but Magistrate while taking cognizance, joined them as accused persons and remanded them to custody---Joining of some persons as accused in a criminal case within meaning of 5.190, Cr.P.C., was not bard, but there should be material on record with the prosecution to enable Court to reach at conclusion that accused, prima facie were involved in commission of offence-- Prosecution on the basis of police papers though had not been able to point out such substantive piece of evidence, but did not question joining of accused in the case-- Opinion of police was not binding on , the Court while taking cognizance of the case, ultimately the material on record was to be examined---Ground for holding the case of accused persons of further inquiry existed-- Trial Court was' to decide the rest of the points at trial---Accused were admitted to bail in circumstances.
Safdar Ali v. Zafar Iqbal 2002 SCMR 63 ref.
(b) Criminal trial---
---- Opinion of police---Binding force of-- Opinion of police was not binding upon Court while taking cognizance and material on record was to be examined.
Ali Nawaz Ghanghro for Applicants.
Ali Azhar Tunio, A.A.-G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 7th May, 2003.
ORDER
Bail has been sought by the applicants in a case registered at Police Station Naudero for an offence punishable under sections 380/409/34 and 120-B,.P.P.C.
It is alleged in the F.I.R. lodged by complainant Ghulam Abbas, Manager, National Bank, Naudero Branch that on 18-2-2003 at 11-00 a.m. he checked the safe of the Bank and found that the gold ornaments of people deposited as security in the bank for the purpose of getting loans were missing. He conveyed this information to his high-ups and then on the same day at 11-00 p.m. the F.I.R. was lodged nominating Zahid Hussain, Muhammad Ibrahim, Abdul Karim, Rafique Ahmed, Abdul Wahid, Bashir Ahmed and Nisar Ahmed as the persons involved in the commission of the offence. During investigation, the entire property was secured from Abdul Wahid on 27-2-2003, 2-3-2003 and 6-3-2003. Challan was submitted in Court showing amongst others the applicants in Column No.2, as they were found to be innocent, but the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance joined them as accused persons and remanded them to custody.
I have heard Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned A.A.-G.
Main contention raised in support of the bail plea is that practically there is no material on record available with the police to suggest that the applicants are involved in commission of the offence in any manner. Mr. Ghanghro submitted that the entire recovery has been made from another accused and even if the learned Magistrate took cognizance right or wrongly, the guilt of applicants would require further inquiry and they are entitled to grant of bail.
Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned A.A.-G. conceded to grant of bail in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.
It is essential to point out that the joining of some persons as accused in a criminal case within the meaning of section 190, Cr.P.C. is no bar as held in the case Safdar Ali v. Zafar Iqbal 2002 SCMR 63, there should be material on record with the prosecution to enable the Court to reach at conclusion that they are prima facie, involved in the commission of the offence. Learned A.A.-G, on the basis of police papers has not been able to point out such substantive piece of evidence at this stage. However, he does not question the joining of the accused persons in the case. At the same time, it may be observed that the opinion of the police is not binding upon the Court while taking cognizance and as such ultimately the material on record is to be examined. For the time being, it can only be observed that there is a ground for holding that the case of the applicants calls for further inquiry. The rest of the points fall within domain of trial and it is for the trial Court to decide the same.
In the above-stated circumstances, the application is allowed. The applicants be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./A-468/K Bail granted.