2012 PLP 850 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE alias SAIF KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 850 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE alias SAIF KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 850 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 850 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 850 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE alias SAIF KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 381/34
Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master, common intention
Complainant (security guard) reported the matter to the factory owner after a delay of about two and a half hours
Question as to how the accused managed to take away such a huge quantity of leather and 650 computers, was not clear
Registration number and other particulars of the vehicle allegedly brought in the factory for the offence were not disclosed
Robbery of such a magnitude was not possible in a short span of time and it would have been convenient for the complainant to have reported the incident to the police when it was in progress, but same was not done
Accused was entitled to bail as a matter of right as maximum punishment provided for the offence was seven (7) years
Case of accused required further probe and, in circumstances, he was granted bail.
Judgment & Decree
SALMAN HAMID, J.
Muhammad Siddique alias Swaif Khan (Applicant) is booked under F.I.R. No.784 of 2011 dated 11-8-2011 of Police Station Korangi Industrial Area for offences, punishable under section 381/34 P.P.C. Per F.I.R. Muhammad Shabbir Chughtai (Complainant) who is a guard in factory reported to its owner that theft has been committed by the applicant together with other persons at about 8-00 p.m., on 10-8-2011. The applicant after lodging of above F.I.R. was arrested. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the first instance since the case does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., therefore, as a matter of right and not of grace, the applicant is entitled to bail and on merits it was argued that on the face of it, the contents of F.I.R. are made up and concocted inasmuch as according to the complainant, he noticed commission of robbery around 8-00 p.m., but reported to owner of factory around 10-30 p.m., without showing and/or giving any reason for such delay of information to owner of the factory. It was argued that this was enough reason to show that the applicant has been implicated falsely in F.I.R. Learned State counsel only argued that since name of applicant appears in F.I.R., it is apparent that he had committed robbery for which he is charged. I have looked into the contents of the F.I.R. and noticed that indeed it says that complainant came to know of robbery at 8-00 p.m., but for some unknown reasons such was reported to owner of the factory at about 10-30 p.m. It is also not clear as to how such a huge quantity of leather and 650 LCD computers were taken away by applicant inasmuch as it is mentioned that one Mazda was brought in factory without disclosing its registration number or any other particulars and if the robbery was under progress of such a magnitude why police was not called as such robbery was not possible in a short span of time. It was also very convenient for the complainant to have reported the incident when it was in progress. This was not reported. In view of the above, case requires further probe. Even otherwise, since maximum punishment less than 10 years and only to the extent of 7 years is provided for the offence. Applicant is entitled to bail as a matter of right and therefore, he is granted bail, subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Application disposed of accordingly. M.W.A./M-24/K Bail granted.