Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MALIK DOST MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 687
[Karachi]
Before Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, J
Malik DOST MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 465 of 1985, decided on 16th May, 1985.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 392/34‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17‑ Bail‑‑First Information Report lodged with delay‑‑No identification test arranged‑‑Case property secured from accused not bearing any special marks of identification‑‑Case not proceeded though accused remained in jail for a period of more than ten months‑‑Case one of further inquiry‑‑Accused admitted to bail in circumstances.
Shahadat Awan for Applicant. M.I. Memon, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
ORDER
This is an application for bail in a case under section 392/34, P.P.C. read with section 17(3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered on 28‑6‑1984 at Police Station, Korangi, Karachi.
Brief facts of the case are that on 7‑6‑1984 at Sehri time, complainant, Muhammad Akhtoon, was present at petrol pump at Korangi Road when one taxi came there and two persons got down and came towards petrol pump. Two others remained in taxi. Both culprits robbed Rs.2,500 and two watches from complainant. It is stated in F.I.R. that culprits were identified as Iqbal and Dost Muhammad and were armed with revolvers, at the time of incident.
Mr. Shahadat Awan, appearing for applicant, contended that there is inordinate delay in filing of the case and identification test was not held.
Mr. M.I. Memon, Additional Advocate‑General, has no objection to the grant of bail.
This incident took place on 7‑6‑1984 and F.I.R. has been lodged on 28‑6‑1984 when applicant was arrested as suspect and was shown to complainant. It is, therefore, the names, of accused were given in F.I.R. otherwise case is that at the time of incident culprits were not known to the complainant. Learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that applicant was taken to petrol pump by police where complainant identified him. There is a delay in lodging the report and no identification test was arranged. It, is contended that watch secured from the applicant bears no special identification marks. The case has not proceeded though applicant has remained in jail for more than 10 months. This is a case for further inquiry. Applicant is admitted to bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,0001 with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, (Hudood cases), Karachi.
M.Y.H./D‑16/K Bail granted.