Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUSHTAQ AHMAD VS Respondent: STATE
1984 P Cr
1984 P Cr. L J 917
[Lahore]
Before Kamal Mustafa Bokhary, J
MUSHTAQ AHMAD-Petitioner
versus
THE STATE-Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1541/B of 1982, decided on 27th December, 1982.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-
-- S. 497-Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17-Bail, grant of-Case of petitioner, accused of committing robbery, at par with that of co-accused al ready allowed bail-Identification parade held about 21 months after occurrence in which petitioner not picked up by name-Petitioner in custody for last 6 months-Case against petitioner, held, one of further inquiry, in circumstances-Bail allowed.
Taj Muhammad Khan Langah for Petitioner.
Munir Hussain Shah for the State.
ORDER
Petitioner alongwith four others, is accused of offence under section 17 of Ordinance No.. VI of 1979. It is alleged that petitioner and his co. accused committed robbery.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the four co-accused of the petitioner have been granted bail and the case of the petitioner is better than Farzand Ali who was allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Leiah. Learned counsel for the State has opposed release of petitioner on bail and has submitted that Muhammad Ramzan, Riaz and Abdullah P. Ws. identified the petitioner as one of the accused although none of them could name him as Mushtaq.
3. Bail has already been allowed to Farzand Ali, Muhammad Iqbal. Zubair and Jaffar, co-accused of the present petitioner, by the learned Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Leiah. The case of petitioner is at par with those already allowed bail. Petitioner is in custody since 24th June, 1982. Petitioner was not previously known to the witnesses and identification parade is stated to have been held about two and a half months after the occurrence in 'which petitioner was not picked up by A name. The case against the petitioner appears. to be of further inquiry covered by section 497(2), Cr. P. C. His person is no longer required for further investigation because he is lodged in the Judicial Lock-up. In the circumstances bail is allowed to the petitioner subject to his furnishing security' in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Leiah.
S.G.D. Bail granted.