Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FIDA HUSSAIN VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Ch. Iftikhar HussainKhan Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai,Muhammad Ajmal Qureshi
2003 P Cr
2003 P Cr. L J 1101
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
FIDA HUSSAIN ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.649/B of 2002, decides on 20th March, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395/411---Bail, grant of-- Further inquiry---Accused was behind the bars for almost one year and three months and was not put to any identification pest---Nothing was recovered from the accused---Case of accused calling for further inquiry into his guilt---No doubt some cases of similar nature were registered against the accused, but he was previously a non-convict---Merely due to registration of cases against the accused, he could not be held dangerous, desperate or hardened criminal---Accused, was entitled to the grant of bail, in circumstances.
Khan Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ajmal Qureshi for the State.
Date of hearing: 20th March, 2002.
ORDER
Fida Hussain petitioner has sought for relief of post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.277 registered on 9-12-1997, under sections 395/411, P.P.C. with Police Station Galaywal, Tehsil and District Lodhran.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on the night preceding to 9-12-1997 at about 7-00 p.m. six unknown persons having fire-arms had snatched away motorcycle from the complainant and one Nisar Ahmad.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that except belated supplementary statement of the complainant and one Muhammad Murtaza recorded on 25-7-2002, there is no other incriminating material evidence against him; that he is behind the bars for about one year and three months; that he was not put to any identification test; that no recovery was effected from him; and that merely on the basis of registration of some other cases against him, he may not be refused the relief of bail, and that he is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the application. However, he has conceded that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last one year and three months and he was not put to any identification test. He has also conceded that nothing was recovered from the petitioner and he is previous non-convict.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both the sides. The petitioner admittedly is behind the bars for the last almost one year and three months and was not put to any identification test. Furthermore, nothing was recovered from him. His case thus calls for further inquiry into his guilt and as such is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. No doubt, some cases of similar nature stand registered against him, but he admittedly is previous non-convict. Thus, merely due to registration of cases against him, he cannot be held to be a dangerous desperate or hardened criminal.
6. In this view of the matter, I find him entitled to the grant of bail. The application is, therefore, accepted and ht; is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
H.B.T./F-163/L Bail granted.