Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM ABBAS VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Faisal ArabMuhammad Ayaz Soomro
2007 Y L R 556
2007 Y L R 556
[Karachi]
Before Faisal Arab, J
GHULAM ABBAS---Applicant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Cr. B.A. No.75 of 2005, decided on 7th January, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.205 & 416---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Case of prosecution was that accused, a jailor, allowed the real accused to escape and instead put his brother in custody---Contention of accused was that he being Jailor of sub jail concerned was handed over the custody of person "A" who was shown to be person 'S'---Defence plea and allegation against accused required further inquiry---Offence of accused also did not come within the prohibition contained in S. 497, Cr. P. C. ---Accused, was enlarged on bail, in circumstances.
Muhammad Ayaz Soomro for Applicant.
Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, State Counsel.
JUDGMENT
FAISAL ARAB, J.---Applicant Ghulam Abbas Sodhra indicted as accused in Crime No.94 of 2005 of Police Station Mehar, for offence punishable under sections 419, 205 and 34, P.P.C., seeks bail.
The case against the applicant is that he was jailor sub-jail Mehar and was handed over custody of two under-trial prisoners on 26-5-2005. The two accused persons, who were handed over, were said to be Deedar and Sudheer, both by caste Khoso. However, on 9-6-2005 upon inspection it was found that Sudheer Khoso was not in custody and in fact his brother Ali Mardan was in custody.
The case of the prosecution is that the applicant allowed the real accused Sudheer to escaped in place of his brother Ali Mardan Khoso.
It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he was Clerk of Mukhtiarkar and was made Jailor of the Sub-Jail, Mehar by the Mukhtairkar and on 26-5-2005 was handed over custody of Ali Mardan Khoso, who was shown to be Sudheer Khoso. It is next contended that it was no criminal offence committed by him but in fact the custody of a wrong person was handed over to him.
The defence plea and the allegation require further inquiry. The offence also does not come within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. The applicant is, therefore, enlarged on bail on furnishing surety the sum Rs.300,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trail Court.
H.B.T./G-2/K Bail granted.