Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2006 P Cr. L J 986

PUNHOON and 3 otherss vs THE STATE

Citation2006 P Cr. L J 986
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Criminal Bail Application No,S-475 of 2005
Date2005-11-08
Judge(s)Muhammad Moosa K. Laghari
ResultBail confirmed

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- The applicants are involved in the offence of committing theft of 180 litres of oil from Tando Alam Mari Oil Field as per complaint lodged by Incharge Security N.L.C. Hyderabad, and registered vide Crime No,34 of 2005, Police Station Husri.

2. ' In support of application for pre-arrest bail it is contended by learned counsel for the applicants, that the provisions of section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, were not attracted inasmuch as the alleged theft was only in respect of 180 litres of oil in which 19 persons were involved and therefore, the value of the alleged theft was below the amount of Nisab as prescribed undei the law. It is further contended that the 'applicants were falsely implicated as the F.I.R. Does not reveal as to how the complainant came to know the names of accused persons. Last but not the least the F.I.R. Was registered after the delay of four days.

3. ' Learned A.A.-G. Has opposed the grant of bail contending that no malice has been pleaded against the complainant and that the offence under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, fell within the prohibitory clause.

4. ' The contentions raised have been considered and the material placed on record has been perused.

5. ' Admittedly the F.I.R. Is delayed by four days for which no satisfactory explanation has been given by the complainant. Prima facie it seems that the offence did not fall within the mischief of section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 in view of the tentative assessm ent of the value of alleged stolen property. Mala fide on the part of the complainant is evident from the fact that the applicants have been named in the F.I.R. Though they are neither employee nor were previously known to the complainant, thus, the case calls for further inquiry.

6. ' In the circumstances, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants is confirmed.

7. ' It has been pointed out that the challan in the case has not been submitted in the Court. The applicants shall be required to cooperate with the police in the investigation of the case.

8. Disposed of.

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