Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1986 P Cr. L J 420

MUHAMMAD IQBAL Alias BALI vs THE STATE-

Citation1986 P Cr. L J 420
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Criminal Bail Application No. 332 of 1985
Date1985-10-20
Judge(s)Syed Abdur Rahman
ResultBail granted

ORDER

1. On 26-8-1985 at 1 a.m. The complainant and his uncle Hadi Bux were sleeping on their lands by the side of their cattle which were tethered in Vathan when applicant Iqbal and one unknown person passed from there. On the challenge of complainant Iqbal abused and gave Lathi blow on the head of the complainant while unidentified person gave Lathi blow on the arm and face of Hadi Bux.

2. Bail application was initially moved before the learned Sessions Judge Hyderabad (Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo) who dismissed the same. In his order he conceded that no offence under section 307, P.P.C. Was made out as there was no motive to kill anybody. He, however, observed that the offence would fall under section 17(1) of the Offences Against the Property. (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (although no such section was applied in the F.I.R.) and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to bail.

3. I do not find any justification in this observation of the learned Sessions Judge. According to section 15 of the Ordinance Haraabah has been defined as under:- "When any one or more persons, whether equipped with arms or not, make show of force for the purpose of taking away the property of another and attack him or cause wrongful restraint or put him in fear of death or, hurt, such person or persons are said to commit Haraabah:"

4. Nowhere in the F.I.R. It has been alleged that the culprits had taken away or attempted to take or even had any intention of taking away the bullocks or any other property of the complainant. It cannot be implied from the circumstances of the case that they had made any A such attempt. All that has been said is that two persons were going towards southern side at 1-00 a.m. Hence it would appear that not even the least imputation of theft or attempt for committing theft has made against the applicant. Hence the provisions of section 17(1) cannot be imported into this case by any stretch of argument. I, therefore, feel that the bail has been improperly refused by the learned Sessions Judge.

5. I, therefore, order that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnising surety and P.R. In the sum of Rs.10,000 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