1999 PLP 438 (MLD)

Criminal Bail Application No. 1898 of 1996, decided on 27th November, 1996.

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392

Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)

Bail, grant of-- Offence against accused fell under S.392, P.P.C. punishment for which did not come within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Identification parade, though was held, but same was of no value as accused was already shown to the complainant party which fact was admitted by prosecution in police papers-- Nothing had been recovered from possession of the accused

Case of accused required further inquiry, in circumstances

Accused was ordered to be released on bail. M.M. Aqil Awan for Applicant. Habib Ahmed for A.-G. for the State. Applicant Amjad Hussain is facing trial in a case registered against him under F.I.R. No.96 of 1996 of Police Station Bahadurabad, Karachi (East). This F.I.R. was lodged at the instance of one Ahmar Hussain on 9-6-1996 at 2-20 a.m., The complainant Ahmar Hussain stated-in his F.I.R. that about four hours earlier i.e. on 8-6-1996 at 9-45 p.m. he was present at his shop when three persons entered in the shop and on force of arms they robbed him of Rs.1000 cash and a licensed revolver of his friend. The number of the licence was given in the F.I.R. and the complainant went to state that the assailants escaped in a car having Registration No.B-4218. The police has shown that the applicant alongwith the co-accused was arrested on 8-6-1996 at 11.30 p.m. from the car of which registration number was the same as given by complainant Ahmar Hussain in his F.I.R., and that the licensed pistol was recovered from the possession of a co-accused. However, the police is said to have taken the applicant to the shop of Ahmar Hussain and he was shown to Ahmar Hussain and P.W. Azhar on 10-6-1996. Again on 20-6-1996, the police held an identification parade in presence of the Magistrate wherein the applicant is said to have been picked out by Ahmar Hu ssain and P.W. Azhar. The applicant stands charged with the offence punishable under section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 392, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the applicant be granted bail as the offence in this case will fall under section 392, P.P.C. punishment for which does not come within the prohibitory clause and secondly the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that although identification parade has been held but the same is of no value as the applicant was already shown to the complainant party which fact is admitted by the prosecution in the police papers. Further, contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and that, therefore, the case against the applicant for his involvement requires further inquiry. Learned State counsel has candidly conceded that the offence against applicant will fall under section 392, P.P.C. which is not covered by prohibitory clause and that, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail and he has also ascertained from the police papers that although the applicant was shown to the P.Ws. on 10-6-1996 on which occasion the applicant was identified by the P.Ws., still an identification parade before a Magistrate was held after ten days. I have considered all these arguments of the learned counsel and seen the record. I find that the case of the applicant requires further inquiry under these circumstances. Therefore, this application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A-149/K Bail granted.