1998 P Cr (PLP)

Shah Ahmad Khan Baloch for Petitioner. Muhammad Mujahid Ahmad for the State. A case under section 21 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 is registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R. No. 148, dated 21-4-1997 at Police Station Chuchak, District Okara on the ground that he was extending patronage, protection or assistance to some persons involved in the theft of cattle heads. The petitioner applied for bail in the Court below which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara vide his order, dated 12-2-1998 on the ground that the petitioner was involved in a number of cases and being a habitual and desperate offender, was not entitled to bail.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of section 21 (ibid) because the F.I.R. does not disclose as to whose theft had taken place and cattle were stolen and by whom. These particulars were allegedly required to show that the petitioner was actually protecting, assisting or harbouring the persons involved in cattle lifting etc.

3. The bail petition is opposed by the learned State Counsel on the ground that according to Police record, 38 cases were registered against the petitioner, the list of which is brought on record today. It is also contended that the recovery of 48 cattle heads belonging to different persons was effected from the Daira of the petitioner on 21-4-1997 vide a memo. attached to that effect. Learned State Counsel also relied upon the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. who have linked the petitioner with the offence under section 21 (ibid). They were Abbas son of Shaira, Shaira son of Bokha, Gulzar son of Jaffer Ali, Khalid Hussain, Yousaf and Khadim Hussain. Lastly, it was contended that the challan has been sent to the Court concerned and since the offence was covered by the prohibitory clause, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage keeping in view his previous record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in rejoinder that the statements of the P.Ws. recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. do not constitute any offence under section 21 (ibid) and as such, it is a case of further inquiry. Secondly, it is contended that recovery of 48 cattle heads 'from the Daira of the petitioner on 21-4-1997 infringed the provisions contained in section 103, Cr.P.C. as only Police employees were made witnesses instead of respectable of the locality, that the Daira belongs to Mst. Mardan who is the mother of the petitioner and she had brought different writ petitions against the Police officials that her cattle heads were taken away forcibly and in some cases, those were returned to her. Since the alleged recovery was made in absence of the petitioner from his Daira, therefore, it was allegedly of no avail. Lastly, it is contended that though there were cases against the petitioner of similar nature but he has been acquitted in most of them.

5. I have considered the foregoing submissions raised at the Bar. The petitioner is named in the F. I. R. and a specific allegation is made against him by the P.Ws. The evidentiary value of the P.Ws. can only be assessed at the time of trial and it will be pre-mature to say that the provisions of section 21 (ibid) were not applicable at this stage. The formation of criminal cases of similar nature against the petitioner since after March, 1972 till date will speak about the chequered history of the petitioner which will be properly analysed during the trial after the evidence is produced regarding the fate of those cases and also their effects on the present case. It is enough to say at this stage that the petitioner is prima facie linked with the occurrence for an offence which falls within the prohibitory clause. The petition is accordingly dismissed with the direction that the trial be concluded within three months by the Trial Court. N.H.Q./M-679/L Bail refused.