Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SARFRAZ VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Mian Nazir AkhtarMalik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl,M. Alam Sabri
2002 Y L R 1110
2002 Y L R 1110
[Lahore]
Before Mian Nazir Akhtar, J
SARFRAZ‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 757/B of 2002, decided on 28th February, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.457/380/411‑‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Recoveries made from the accused had, prima facie, made out an offence under S. 411, P. P. C. ‑‑‑No evidence was available on record to show that the accused had actually entered the house of the complainant and committed theft therein‑‑ Offences under Ss. 411, 380 & 457, P. P. C. did not fall within the prohibition contained in S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Prosecution had not urged that the accused after getting bail would abscond, commit any other offence or tamper with the prosecution evidence‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 ref.
Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for Petitioner.
M. Alam Sabri for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.288 dated 28‑11‑2001 for offences under sections 457, 380 and 411 of the P.P.C. and section 14 of Ordinance No.VI of 1979 at Police Station Sahiwal, District Sargodha.
2. The report was lodged by Muhammad Aslam son of Rana Noor Muhammad alleging therein that on the night between 16th and 17th of November, 2001, some unknown thieves had stolen away his bicycle, an electric iron, a tape‑recorder, nine pairs of ladies clothes and some other household articles.
3. The petitioner's learned counsel contends that the F.I.R. was lodged with delay of 12 days, that the recovery of four pairs of clothes, an electric iron and tape -recorder was made from the petitioner on 11‑12‑2001; that the number of tape‑recorder mentioned in the F.I.R. is 548, while the one recovered from the petitioner is 543; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Cr.P.C. and the petitioner deserves bail at this stage. In this connection he relies on Tariq Bashir and 5 others v The State (PLD 1995 SC 34)
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the accused is named in the F.I.R. and incriminating recoveries were made at his instance, that he was found guilty during the course of investigation.
5. The recoveries made from the petitioner prima facie make out an offence under section 411, of the Cr.P.C. so far as sections 380 and 457, of the P.P.C. are concerned, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had actually entered the complainant's house and committed theft from there. Moreover, both these offences do not fall within the prohibition of section 497 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had wrongly mentioned in his order dated 22‑1‑2002 that the offence under section 457 of the P.P.C. falls within the prohibitory clause. It has not been urged on behalf of the State that in case of grant of bail the petitioner would abscond, to commit any other offence or tamper with the prosecution evidence.
6. Therefore, the petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum or Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial/Ilaqa Magistrate, Sargodha.
N.H.Q./S‑782/L Bail allowed.