Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: IMRAN AHMED BAIG VS Respondent: STATE
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 534
[Karachi]
Before Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J
IMRAN AHMED BAIG---Applicant
versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 36 and 38 of 1992, decided on 27th January, 1992.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)/14---Bail, grant of---Accused had allegedly pointed out the place of occurrence to the police after about 14 months of the incident where the complainant had identified them---Possibility of mistaken identification of accused under the circumstances could not be ruled out and case against them needed further inquiry---Accused were allowed bail accordingly.
S. Mahmood Alam Rizvi for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No.36 of 1992).
Miskeen Elahi Shahzada for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No38 of 1992).
Shaukat H. Zubedi, A.A.-G. for the State.
ORDER
Since both these bail applications have arisen out of the same F.I.R.. viz. Crime No356 of 1990, North Nazimabad, Police Station under section 17(3) and section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, they are being disposed of by a consolidated order.
2. Applicants Imran Ahmad Baig and Abdul Kadir had applied for bail before learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge (Central) Karachi, but without success, as according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, they had pointed out the place of occurrence to the police and complainant Moinuddin Roomi, who was present there had identified them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has however, lost sight of the fact that the incident out of which these bail applications have arisen, had taken place on 7-9-1990. The applicants were arrested in some other case on 18-11-1991 and during interrogation they are said to have pointed out the place of occurrence on 24-11-1991 after about 14 months of the incident. The possibility of mistaken identification under these circumstances, therefore, cannot be ruled out and it was obviously for this reason that the learned AA: G. has raised no objection to the grant of bail to both the applicants by stating that the case against them needs further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, bail is allowed to Imran Ahmad Baig and Abdul Kadir in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rs. fifty thousand) each with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It is needless to state that if during the course of trial some tangible evidence is brought on record connecting the applicants with this crime, it will be open to the trial Court to cancel their bail.
N.H.Q./I-236/K Bail allowed