Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MANZOOR AHMED VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Anwar Zaheer JamaliNiaz Hussain Panhwar,THE STATE,Abdul Jabbar Khaskheli
2003 P Cr
2003 P Cr. L J 785
[Karachi]
Before Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J
MANZOOR AHMED ---Applicant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.668 of 2002, decided on 17th December, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 498---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337 F(i)/34---Pre-arrest bail---Accused was nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role attributed to him in the occurrence---Delay in lodging the F.I.R. had been explained---Several injuries sustained by the complainant were duly supported by the record---Nothing was available on the file to show any previous enmity of the complainant with the accused to justify allegations of his mala fides in naming the accused for the commission of the crime---Pre-arrest bail was declined to accused in circumstances.
Niaz Hussain Panhwar for Applicant.
Abdul Jabbar Khaskheli for the State.
ORDER
Through this application under sections 497/498, Cr.P.C. applicant Manzoor Ahmed son of Haji Ghulam Muhammad seeks pre arrest bail in Crime No.25 of 2002 of Police Station Jhallo wherein he has been charged for offence punishable under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, 337-F(i)
According to the prosecution story, allegations against the present applicant are that in an incident, which occurred at 8-30 p.m., on 3-10-2002, applicant who was armed with double-barrel gun, robbed complainant with cash of Rs.10,000 from his side pocket, one golden finger ring, two N.I.Cs. and Seiko-V wrist-watch. This offence, according to the F.I.R., was committed by five persons and during the incident motorcycle of complainant was also robbed and several injuries were caused to him.
During investigation some accused have been apprehended. Robbed articles have been recovered by the police and case has been challaned before the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that due to tribal enmity applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. The F.I.R. is delayed by 14 hours and the identification of applicant in the light of motorcycle is not reliable, thus his case needs further enquiry entitling him for bail. He further untended that the recovery of robbed articles has also been effected from other accused, therefore, interim pre-arrest bail allowed to him earlier may be confirmed.
Mr. Abdul labbar Khaskheli, the learned Advocate for the State, on the other hand, contended that delay of 14 hours in lodging of the F.I.R. has been duly explained, the medical certificate of the complainant shows six injuries on his person and confirms the incident. There is nothing except the oral word of the applicant about his enmity with the complainant, thus, at this stage there is no element of mala fide entitling the applicant for grant of pre-arrest bail.
I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and perused the case record.
The contentions of Mr. Abdul Jabbar Khaskheli about reasonable explanation of delay in lodging of F.I.R. and several injuries to the complainant are duly supported from the case record. The applicant is a nominated accused in the F.I.R. with specific role attributed to him and there is also nothing on record to show any previous enmity of complainant with the applicant to justify allegations of mala fide of the complainant in naming the present applicant in the commission of crime.
For the foregoing reasons, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. This application is accordingly dismissed. Order off interim pre-arrest bail passed on 28-11-2002 is hereby recalled.
N.H.Q./M-431/K Pre-arrest bail refused.