| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 3472 2009 SLD 3472 2009 PCRLJ 1041 |
Islamabad High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No.47/B of 2009, decided on 4th March, 2009.
Before Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J
Ajmal Khan Khattak and Hamid Ahmed for Petitioner. Abdul Rehman Minhas, Federal Counsel. Mubarak S.-I. with record.
Criminal Miscellaneous No.47/B of 2009, decided on 4th March, 2009.
Before Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J
Ajmal Khan Khattak and Hamid Ahmed for Petitioner. Abdul Rehman Minhas, Federal Counsel. Mubarak S.-I. with record.
NAZIR KHAN----Petitioner
VS
THE STATE----Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 395,458,412
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.395, 458 & 412---Bail, refusal of---Accused was arrested after getting the record of stolen mobile phones---During investigation recovery of looted articles i.e. bangles, cash and cell phones had been effected from accused and those articles were duly identified by She complainant---No enmity came on record to falsely implicate accused---Record revealed that accused was also involved in number of other cases of similar nature---Accused seemed to be a habitual offender---Deeper appreciation was not warranted under the law at bail stage and only bird's eye view was to be made---Sufficient material was available on record to believe that accused had committed the offence which fell under the Prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Challan had been submitted in the Court---Bail was refused. ORDER RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.--- Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.275 of 2008, dated 9-7-2008, offence under sections 395, 458, 412 of P.P.C. registered at Police Station Shehzad Town, Islamabad. 2. Precisely, allegation against the accused/petitioner is that he along with other co-accused entered the house of complainant through "Mumty" and snatched gold ornaments weighing 17 Tolas, 2 Cameras, four watches, prize bonds worth Rs.20,000 cash amount 50,000 and 5 mobile phones at gun point, hence this case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been involved in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive; that he is not nominated in the F.I.R.; that alleged recovery has been effected from the house of petitioner, which is highly doubtful; that essentials of section 103 were not fulfilled at the time of recovery. Investigation of the case is complete and petitioner is no more required by police for further probe. He is behind the bars for the last 7 months. There is a delay of 5 days in registration of case, which is fatal for the prosecution. Recovery of one…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492