Abduction and robbery

2011 YLR 2426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365 & 392Abduction and robberyBail, grant ofFurther inquiry

In the F.I.R. two allegations, one with regard to abduction of wife of complainant and other with regard to the robbery were made, however, the F.I.R. only connected accused with robbery

F.I.R. did not specifically mention as to whether accused had broken the iron box or had taken some article therefrom

Reading of the F.I.R. did not show as to which articles were taken by accused

Since allegations against accused were general in nature and there was an inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R., which had not been explained, case against accused required further inquiry in terms of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.

2010 PCrLJ 986 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 498Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365 & 392Abduction and robberyInterim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of

No allegation was on record against accused persons that they had in any manner harmed or assaulted the alleged abductee and on her own showing she was released subsequently by accused persons within one day

Narrative as given by the complainant did not inspire confidence

No eye-witness of the incident was on record and relatives of the complainant who met him and told the complainant about the incident, were not stated in the F.I.R. to be eye-witnesses to the incident nor had they claimed to be such in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C.

F.I.R., showed that the alleged abductee herself re-appeared the next day

F.I.R. revealed that complainant received information about the occurrence at his work place

If there were no eye-witnesses to the incident, how did the complainant come to know of the identity of accused persons

Clear and obvious inconsistencies were found in the material facts between the averments made in the F.I. R. and the statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. recorded by the alleged abductee

All said factors required further inquiry and were sufficient to establish a reasonable case for the grant of bail

Complainant's residence was at a place of about 33 K.M. from place where he allegedly met the alleged abductee

Actions of the Police seemed to be tainted with mala fide

Accused having made out a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail, their interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them, was confirmed.

2009 CLC 39 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 42Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.91 & 120Suit for declarationLimitationSuit was objected to on the ground of limitationObjection was that suit was barred under Art.91 of Limitation Act, 1908 as same was filed after lapse of three years

Said objection was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that documents pertaining to the suit property having been sought to be declared as Benamidar, Art.120 of Limitation Act, 1908 would be applicable in the case

Validity

Limitation being a mixed question of law and fact, required evidence

Objection was ruled out by High Court subject to all just exceptions and case was directed to be admitted for hearing the objection.