Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ILYAS VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice M.A. Shahid SiddiquiZafar Iqbal Chohan,Fahim Bashir
2004 M L D 439
2004 M L D 439
[Lahore]
Before M.A. Shahid Siddiqui, J
MUHAMMAD ILYAS‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1035‑B of 2002, decided on 4th April, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860); S.392‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Complainant was not asked to identify accused‑‑‑Identification made by prosecution witness without specifying the role of the accused, was of no consequence‑‑‑No other evidence was to connect accused with alleged occurrence‑‑‑Nothing was on record to show any previous involvement of accused in any other criminal case‑‑-Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
Fahim Bashir for the State.
Date of hearing: 4th April, 2002.
ORDER
Muhammad Ilyas petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in a case under section 392, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhang, on 28‑4‑2001, vide F. I. R. No. 197 of 2001.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28‑4‑2001 at 7‑00 p.m., Hafiz Muhammad Khalid (complainant) and his two brothers, who run their business as wholesale Kiryana merchant, were busy in making bundles of the currency notes, when three unidentified persons carrying fire‑arms with them suddenly entered into the shop and took away a sum of Rs.900,000 on pistol point and decamped. While leaving the market, they took away a sum of Rs.8,000 from another shopkeeper and then snatched a motorcycle. The culprits disappeared after leaving the motorcycle in a street. Hafiz Muhammad, Khalid (complainant) suspected Wali Khan and one Tasawwar.
3. It is argued that the petitioner was, in fact; taken into custody by the police on 16‑9‑2001 in another case F.I.R. No.426 under section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms, 1991. On the next day, he was taken into custody in this case and sent to judicial lock7up, where the identification parade was held on 16‑10‑2001. It is submitted that Muhammad Khalid (complainant) was not put to identification test, while the two P.Ws. except Muhammad Ramzan could not identify the petitioner.
4. I have considered the arguments and have perused the record. Muhammad Khalid (complainant) was not asked to identify the accused. The identification made by Muhammad Ramzan without specifying the role of the accused is of no consequence. There is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. There is also nothing on the record to show the previous involvement of the petitioner in any other criminal case. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate.
H.B.T./M-2423/L Bail granted.