2005 PLP 669 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392‑‑‑Bail, refusal of‑‑‑Accused was stated to be a habitual offender as there were other cases of criminal nature against him‑‑‑Present case against the accused fell under prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. ‑‑‑Accused was nominated in the F.I.R. and prosecution witnesses in their statements under S.161, Cr. P. C. had involved him in the matter‑‑‑Two persons, who were also victims of offence committed by accused, had clearly involved accused in their, statements under S.161, Cr. P. C.‑‑ Sufficient material was available to connect accused in commission of offence under S. 392, P. P. C. which was punishable up to 14 years R.I.‑‑‑Accused being unable to establish case to grant him bail under S.497, Cr. P. C., his bail application was dismissed. Abdul Hameed Cheema for Petitioner. The petition has been moved for the grant of post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.265 dated 25‑8‑2004 registered under section 392, P.P.C. at Police Station, Chak Bedi, Tehsil and District Pakpattan Sharif on the complaint of Muhammad Afzal son of Bahawal Din. The allegations, as per the F.I.R., are that the petitioner along with his co‑accused on 13‑8‑2004 at about 8‑00 p.m. snatched away a motorcycle belonging to the complainant Muhammad Afzal at pistol point and they allegedly snatched Rs.8,000 from Faqir Muhammad and Muhammad Afzal was also deprived of Rs.1,080 from his pocket by the accused persons.

2. The plea for the release of the petitioner on bail was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, vide his order dated 3‑11‑2004.

3. I have perused the F.I.R. and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Pakpattan Sharif and heard the petitioner's counsel in detail.

4. The petitioner is stated to be a habitual offender as there are other cases of criminal nature against him. The case of the petitioner falls in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. the accused/petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and the P.Ws. in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. have involved him in the matter. Faqir Muhammad and Muhammad Afzal, who were also victim of the offence committed by the accused, have clearly involved the petitioner in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. So a sufficient material is available to connect the petitioner in the commission of the offence under section 392, P.P.C. The offence allegedly attributed to the petitioner is punishable up to 14 years.

5. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is unable to establish the case to grant him bail under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./T‑64/L Bail application dismissed.