Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZULFIQAR SHAH VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 1873
[Lahore]
Before Khizar Hayat, J
ZULFIQAR SHAH‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.453/B of 1988, decided on 21st February, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioner in jail for the last 10 months yet not a single witness examined so far‑‑Petitioner's case also identical to that of co‑accused, already released on bail‑ Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances.
Malik A.R. Arshad for Petitioner
A.S.I. Muhammad Ishaq with Record.
Date of hearing: 21st February, 1988,
ORDER
This is an application for the grant of bail moved on behalf of Zulfiqar Shah, petitioner, who is under arrest in a case registered at Police Station Gulberg, Lahore, under Article 17 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. Maula Dad, complainant, reported at the Police Station on 31st March, 1987 that he was asleep in his house on that night when somebody knocked at the door. He opened the door‑whereupon five unidentified persons two of whom were armed with guns and the rest with daggers forced their entry into his house. They took away his television set and a tape recorder. During the occurrence, Munawwar Hussain, Khushi Muhammad and Akbar Masih, his neighbours, were also attracted to the spot as a result of the alarm raised by him and seen the culprits. After departure of the accused the complainant checked up his household articles and found that a ring of gold was also missing. On the next day i.e. 1st April, 1987 Zulfiqar Shah, petitioner, with his co‑accused was arrested. It is stated that this petitioner was wearing stolen ring at the time of his arrest which was identified by the complainant. It was, therefore, seized. The petitioner was put on test identification parade supervised by a Magistrate in the jail premises on 13th May, 1987 in which the witnesses named in the F.I.R. besides the complainant identified him correctly.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.
4. Admittedly the petitioner is in jail for the last about 10 months but so far not a single witness has been examined. It is stated that this case has been concocted against the petitioner after he had been arrested on 1st April, 1987 by ante‑dating the F.I.R. Further, contended that description of the ring is not mentioned in the F.I.R. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner was arrayed in the test identification parade after about 1 months of his arrest which is suggestive of the fact that he was shown to the witnesses before the parade was held.
5. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. Without expressing on merits, I find that petitioner's case is identical to that of Muhammad Sadiq co‑accused who was allowed bail by me on. 15th November, 1987 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3297‑B of 1987. In the circumstances, he is entitled to the same concession, therefore this petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. /Duty Magistrate, Model Town, Lahore.
S.G.D./Z‑57/L Bail allowed.