1994 PLP 1774 (MLD)

The petitioners who are involved in a case under section 458/337-A (a), P.P.C. read with section 17 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), arising out of F.I.R. No. 61/93, dated 3-3-1993, registered at Police Station Sarai Mughal, District Kasur, seek to be admitted to bail.

2. Briefly the allegations against the petitioners are that they alongwith others while armed with deadly weapons trespassed into the house of the complainant at dead of night and took away gold ornaments etc. amounting to Rs. 50,000.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of one month which remained unexplained, hence the version given in the F.I.R. is of a doubtful character. He next contended that the recovery of the ornaments allegedly recovered at the instance of the petitioners were planted on the petitioners and the case is wholly cooked up one and the F.I.R. has been lodged against them due to enmity, so the petitioners are entitled to the grant of bail because on the present material, the case against the petitioners is one of further inquiry. In the end, he submitted that the challan has not been submitted in the Court and the petitioners are behind the bars without any progress in the trial.

4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this bail application on the ground that the complainant and his niece were medically examined on the same day which gives corroboration to the version of the F.I.R., and the delay was caused due to the conduct of the accused/petitioners which has been lamed properly. He submitted-that the petitioners are accused of an offence which falls within the prohibitory clause and the complainant has no ostensible motive or enmity against the petitioners to falsely involve them in this case.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. No doubt, there is a delay of one month in lodging the F.I.R. but it has den properly examined and the M.L.Rs. of the complainant as well as his niece further corroborate the prosecution version that they have received the injuries at the hands of the accused/petitioners. The recovery of gold ornaments allegedly stolen from the house of the complainant further strengthens the case of the prosecution. As the offence committed by the petitioners falls within the prohibitory clause, so the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of bail, hence their bail application is dismissed. N.H.Q./A-624/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.