1983 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Hassan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Akhtar Hassan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shaukat Ali Mehr for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ ‑‑S. 497‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17‑Bail‑Harabah‑Accused charged with Harabah not stated to be completing Nisab and Police doing nothing to evaluate stolen property to make it case of Harabah-- Condition of at least two witnesses required not fulfilled‑Other criminal cases pending against accused but no conviction awarded so far‑Accused admitted to bail. Muhammad Rafique for the State.
Judgment & Decree
It is an application for bail after arrest in a case under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance VI, 1979. The allegation against the petitioners was that they robbed the complainant of money to the tune of Rs. 350; purse and wrist watch after sunset on a highway at pistol point.
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no mention in the F. I. R. of any claim on the part of the informant that he was able to identify the assailants ; that there was no identification parade ; and that the record did not speak much as to how after all they were arrested, According to him, at best it was a case of recovery of stolen property failing under section 411, P. P. C. rather than Harabah invoked by the police. He adds that for making it Harabah, the total value of the stolen `t property should have been at least equal to the market‑value of 4.457 grants of gold, which it was not. Besides, it was argued that each one of the petitioners was supposed to have completed the Nisab ; that so far the, police had done nothing to evaluate the stolen property to make it a case of Harabah and lastly that at least two witnesses were required for it which were also lacking.
3. Although some other criminal cases are said to be pending against the petitioners, yet we have to confine ourselves to the facts of the present case particularly because so far there has been no conviction. Both the petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000 (rupees five thousand only, each with one surety in the like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.