2012 PLP 622 (YLR)
SIKANDAR and 3 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 622 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | Shahid Anwar Bajwa, J |
| Parties | SIKANDAR and 3 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 622 (YLR)?
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 622 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Shahid Anwar Bajwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 622 (YLR) (SIKANDAR and 3 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 10th November, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392/34
Accused had allegedly come on a motorcycle and a tractor to commit robbery
No number or any other description of the motorcycle and the tractor had been given in the F.I.R.
Said motorcycle and the tractor had not yet been recovered from the accused, nor the prosecution had proved the ownership of the same
No trolley having been attached with the tractor, it was difficult to visualize that forty bags of fertilizer and zinc pesticides could be loaded on the back of the tractor
Case against accused appeared to be doubtful and of further inquiry
Accused were behind the bars for about two months
Bail was allowed to accused, in circumstances. Abdul Hafeez Anwar for Applicant. Ms. Rahat Ehsan, A.P.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.
F.I.R.. No.70 of 2001 was recorded at Police Station Jati, District Thatta on 26-9-2011 for an incident alleged to have occurred earlier that day. The complainant stated that he was a Kamdar at a farm and on the material date he along with some other persons was sitting at the Otaq of the farm when at 9-00 p.m. one tractor and one motorcycle came and stopped. It is further stated that in torch light they recognized all the four applicants, two of whom alighted from the tractor, while the other two alighted from the motorcycle. They robbed two Nokia Mobiles and loaded 15 bags of the fertilizers on the back of the tractor and 20 bags of Zinc pesticide also on the back of the tractor. The tractor went away and after some time two other accused on the motorcycle also went away. The bail application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 17-10-2011. Learned counsel submitted that prior to the incident the applicant was working as Hari and his tenancy was terminated but his share of rice crop was not given to him and this F.I.R. has been lodged out of desire to usurp that share. Learned counsel next submitted that no details of tractor and motorcycle have been given in the F.I.R. Learned counsel next submitted that it is claimed that the present applicants were recognized in torch-light and submitted that recognization in torch-light is always of a weak type of recognization. Learned counsel next submitted that it is not mentioned that there was any trolley attached with the tractor and it is alleged in the F.I.R. that 15 bags of fertilizers and 20 bags of zinc pesticide were loaded on the back of the tractor. Learned counsel submitted that since tractor had no trolley attached with the tractor and without having trolley, it is impossible to load 35 bags on a tractor. Lastly learned counsel submitted that no recovery has taken place. Learned D.P.-G. vehemently opposed the grant of this bail application. She submitted that the applicants have been nominated in the F.I.R. which has been promptly lodged and is therefore, involved in a non-bailable offence. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that robbers came on a motorcycle and a tractor. No number of the tractor is mentioned in the F.I.R. and same is the position in respect of the motorcycle. No make or colour of the tractor is mentioned in the F.I.R. and same is the position of motorcycle. Both the applicants are behind the bars for a period of about two months. No recovery of any such tractor or motorcycle has yet taken place. Learned D.P.-G. was unable to satisfy the court whether the applicants even owned any such tractor or motorcycle. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that 20 bags of fertilizers and 20 bags of Zinc pesticide were loaded at the back of the tractor. It is rather difficult to visualize as to how 40 bags can be loaded on the back of a tractor. This could only be done if there was a trolley with the tractor but no trolley is alleged to have been attached with the tractor in the F.I.R. Therefore, the case against the applicants on this score creates a doubt. The case of the applicants on account of non-recovery is still of further inquiry. Result of the above discussion is that this bail application is allowed and the applicants are ordered to be admitted to bail upon their executing PR bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The above are the reasons for the short order passed in Court on 10-11-2011. N.H.Q./S-129/K Bail allowed.