Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
K.L.R. 2009 Criminal Cases 227

Allah Rakha vs The State

CitationK.L.R. 2009 Criminal Cases 227
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1263-B of 2009
Date2009-03-26
Judge(s)S. Ali Hassan Rizvi
ResultBail after arrest refused.

ORDER S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J. - Allah Rakha alias Shahbaz alias Butt petitioner seeks baib after arrest in case- F.I.R. No. 47/08, dated 12.1.1008 for offences under Sections 381-A/411, P.P.C, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore.

2. The ground taken for bail is that the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R.; that even if the recovery is effected, case under Section 411, P.P.C, would be made out and that at all events the offences in which the petitioner has been indicted do not fall within the prohibitory clause, it was claimed that in such cases, bail is granted as a rule and rejection thereof is an exception. Reliance was placed on 2008 P.Cr.L.J. 611.

3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State opposed the bail.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and D.P.G, for the State, I. Quite see that the recovery of the stolen motorcycle belonging to traffic warden, Sector Mall-11, Lahore was effected from the petitioner who was arrested in some other case (F.I.R. No. 625/2008) for offence under Section 380, P.P.C, In the course of investigation, the petitioner disclosed and led to the recovery of stolen motorcycle belonging to a police warden. The nature of the offence forming the subject- matter of both the F.I.Rs., as afore-mentioned, is almost the same. The act of the petitioner is stealing away the motorcycle belonging to a police official right from Regal Chowk, Lahore, cannot be taken lightly, it reflects his desperation. The argument that there was violation of Section 103, Cr.P.C, has no force at all, because in case of recovery of motorcycle, Section 103, Cr.P.C, was hardly applicable the moreso when the accused had himself led to discovery of a fact, In such situation, the recovery made would be admissible under Article 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

The argument in that context was, therefore, nothing but a subterfuge. Considering the nature of offence in which the petitioner .Is involved, I am not inclined to exercise may discretion in his favour.

His application is dismissed.

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