1994 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497

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

Bail, grant of

No empty was recovered from the spot and none of the inmates of the house was injured during the occurrence

Question whether the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. and the material collected so far constituted - an offence of theft or receiving/retaining stolen property, or the one of Haraabah as defined in S. 17 of the Ordinance was yet to be determined

Accused was in jail for the last about rive months without trial although it was his right to be tried expeditiously

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Rai M. Tufail Khan Kharal for Petitioner. Sh. Ihsan Ahmad for the State. This petition for grant of bail has been moved on behalf of Akhtar Hussain, petitioner, who stands arrested in case F.I.R. No.199/92 dated 4-8-1992, under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979, registered at Police Station "A" Division Okara. The petitioner's bail plea was declined by the lower Court, hence this petition.

2. According to the prosecution the petitioner armed with a Khanjar and a revolver with five other co-accused broke into the house of Abdur Razzaq, Advocate, on the night between 3/4 August, 1992 and stole away different articles comprising the electric goods and ornaments of gold etc. When the inmates of the house tried to round up the petitioner and his co-accused they resorted to ineffective firing. The petitioner was arrested on 16-8-1992 and subsequently on 24-8-1992 a tape-recorder and two rings of gold (stolen property) belonging to the complainant in this case were recovered from him. The petitioner as well as his co-accused have since been challaned to Court.

3. It is contended that the case is false and is the outcome of party -faction. It is next submitted that at the most the case is one of theft or receiving/retaining stolen property and that in order to look the charge more graver, firing at the time of occurrence by the accused party, has been introduced. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State however, strongly opposes the petition saying that the offence with which the petitioner is charged is punishable with imprisonment for life and as such his case falls within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

4. I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the record. Admittedly, no empty was recovered from the spot and none of the inmates of the house was injured during the occurrence. In the circumstances, the question whether the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. and the material collected so far constitute an offence of theft or receiving/retaining stolen property, or the one of Haraabah, as defined in section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner is in jail for the last about 5 months, without trial. Needless to say that it is the right of every accused to be tried expeditiously. However, without expressing at this stage, on the merits of the case, I feel inclined to allow this petition and direct that the petitioner be released subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./A-310/L Bail allowed.