Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Karachi) 271

IMDAD ALI vs STATE

CitationPLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Karachi) 271
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Crl. B.A. No, 334 of 1999 and M.A. No, 15 of 2000
Date2000-02-21
Judge(s)Muhammad Ashraf Leghari
ResultBail granted

ORDER

1. The applicant is involved in a case under Sections 457, 380 PPC and 14 Tazir of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 arising out of Crime No, 45 of 1997 of P.S. Dakhan.

2. Complainant Ghulam Hyder lodged FIR on 18.8.1997 stated therein that about 8 days back six Bandits sneaked into their house out of whom he identified four persons namely Imdad, Waris, Shahzado and Ghulam Kadir and the remaining two were unknown. They committed theft of his bullock. He and his inmates wokeup on dog barking and found the culprits taking away their bullock. The complainant approached the nek mards of village and met present accused Imdad who promised to return the bullock, but subsequently he did not fulfill the promise. After 8 days the complainant lodged the FIR. The police took up investigation and submitted challan. The case is pending trial before the Court of Civil Judge and FCM, Garhi Yasin. The bail to applicant is mainly refused on the ground of his absconsion.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the applicant had no knowledge of this case and police had never come to serve the process of the Court at any time. It is further contended that the accused was arrested on 7.2.1999 in some other case and since then he is in custody. Nothing incriminating is recovered from the possession of the accused.

4. Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio Advocate for the State in the above circumstances has stated no objection to the grant of bail.

5. The record reveals that accused was arrested on 7.2.1999 and since then he is in continuous custody. The absconsion of accuse is yet to be established at the time of trial. The case is pending trial in the Court of First Class Magistrate. Nothing incriminating is recovered from the possession of the accused. F.I.R. is delayed by about 8 days and no plausible explanation is furnished by the complainant. Under these circumstances, the case of accused requires further inquiry as at this stage it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of any Non-Bailable Offence.

6. The accused is granted bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (one lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch