Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL SATTAR VS Respondent: THE STATE
1997 P Cr
1997 P Cr. L J 704
[Lahore]
Before Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J
ABDUL SATTAR and another---Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1011/B of 1995, decided on 10th July, 1995.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17---Bail, grant of---Case against accused persons was that complainant who was on duty as a bus commando, received information that in the bus some persons duly armed were travelling with a purpose to commit Harabah/dacoity and when he directed bus driver to take bus to Thana, accused who were two in number started firing hitting a passenger and complainant-- Even if allegation levelled against accused persons were correct, a case of Harabah was not made out against them as the crime which accused .persons were intending to commit, would be established at the time of trial and at the nest it would be a case of attempt to commit theft or Harabah which offence did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Bail was granted to accused persons, in circumstances.
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioners.
Shahid Aleem for the State.
ORDER
Petitioners being accused of offences under section 17/6/79, Haraba/Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 levelled in F.I.R. No. 101 of 1995, dated 21-4-1995 registered at Police Station Kameet, District Sahiwal have applied to this Court for grant of bail after arrest. Briefly the allegation in the F.I.R. are that the complainant was on duty as a bus commando, received an information that in the bus mentioned in F.I.R. some persons duly armed were travelling with a purpose to commit Harabah/dacoity. The complainant accordingly sought armed, assistance from the duty point and then he gave direction to the bus driver to take the bus to Thana. Suddenly two persons sitting at the front of seat No.3 fired which fire hit one Siddique as also the complainant on his left hand during the confusion which followed the accused including the petitioners made good their escape.
2. Even if all the allegations levelled are admitted to be correct, a case of Harabah does not seem to have been made out. Even the learned State Counsel admitted this legal position but opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioners were involved in attempt to commit heinous offence and no leniency should be shown.
3. After considering the submissions and going through the record, prima facie the offence of Harabah does not seem to have been made out. That the petitioners were intending to commit the crime would be established at the time of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners is right in stating that at best it would be a case of attempt to commit theft or Harabah which offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. I allow this bail application under section 497, Cr.P.C. and direct the release of the petitioners on the condition of furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sahiwal.
H.B.T./A-875/L Petition allowed.