Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MEHBOOB HEMANI VS Respondent: STATE
1989 M L D 4050
1989 M L D 4050
[Karachi]
Before Allahdino G. Memon, J
MEHBOOB HEMANI--Applicant
Versus
THE STATE--Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 5 of 1989, decided on 24th January, 1989.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--
---5. 497--Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)--Bail--Allegation that property subject-matter of robbery, was recovered from accused and that same was identified by witnesses--Name of accused not appearing in First Information Report--Police papers disclosing that accused and co-accused were taken to house of complainant and were shown to inmates of house but there had been no proper identification test--Accused remained in custody for more than nine months--Investigating Officer stating that accused was facing trial in live theft cases and two cases under S.17(3) of Ordinance VI of 1979--Case of accused requiring further inquiry with regard to nature of offence--Accused granted bail in circumstances.
S. Ziauddin Nasir for Applicant.
A.H. Lakho, A.-G. Sindh for the State.
ORDER It has been contended by Mr. Ziauddin Nasir, learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the applicant has remained in custody for more than 9 months and the case has made absolutely no progress. That the name of the applicant does not transpire in the F.I.R., and no identification test was held by the police through witnesses. It was further contended that it will be at the most a case under section 411, P.P.C., and therefore, the applicant was entitled to bail. It was further contended that the learned trial Judge has been transferred about 4 months back, and no successor has been appointed.
Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, learned Advocate-General, Sindh appearing for the State, has conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant in view of the above circumstances.
The F.I.R. clearly shows that the name of the applicant does not anspire in the F.I.R. The police papers disclose that the applicant and the co- accused were taken to the house of the complainant and showed to the inmates of the house but there has been no proper identification test. The applicant has remained in custody for more than 9 months. The Investigating Officer who is present in Court has stated that the applicant is facing trial in five theft cases and two cases under section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979.
In view of the above circumstances, of course there is an allegation against the applicant that the property subject-matter of robbery was recovered from him and the same was identified by the witnesses. Be that as it may, I am of the considered view that the case of the applicant requires further inquiry with regard to the nature of offence.
I, therefore, direct that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) only and, P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge.
However, if any tangible evidence is brought on record against the applicant during the trial, the learned trial Judge will be at liberty to cancel his bail.
M.Y.H./M-834/K
Bail granted.