Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 2707 2018 SLD 2707 2018 PCRLJ 28
Sindh High Court
Cr. Bail Application No. S-795 of 2014, decision & hearing Dated: 02-03-2017.
MOHAMMED KARIM KHAN AGHA, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Iftikhar Ali Arain, Nisar Ahmed Bhanbharo
Respondent(s) by: Abdul Rehman Kolachi, A.P.G.

MUHAMMAD AYOOB AND 2 OTHERS

VS

THE STATE

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 498

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 392

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 392---Robbery---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Ulterior motive and mala fide intention---Complainant had alleged that accused-petitioners duly armed alighted from their motor bike and robbed him of his motor cycle, Rs. 5,000 and his mobile phone---Mala fide had to be shown on the part of either the complainant or the police in case of pre-arrest bail---Record showed that complainant filed the FIR against the accused-petitioners after they filed civil suit against him---Said factor, prima facie, indicated that FIR had been lodged for mala fide reasons in order to pressurize the accused-petitioners to withdraw or settle the civil suit---Complainant did not make any effort to proceed with the completion of the trial of the accused-petitioners---Sole purpose of the complainant seemed to be to unnecessarily linger the trial which conduct itself appeared to be prima facie "mala fide"---Facts and circumstances of the case showed that robbery was not committed on the highway as alleged, and maximum imprisonment could be extended for ten years and shall not be less than three years, however, even in such circumstances, the minimum period of not less than three years would be considered while passing sentence, if the accused was convicted under S. 392, P.P.C.---If the sentence carried a range from five years to fifteen years imprisonment, for the purpose of bail, the lower end of the range would be considered, which in the case of S. 392, P.P.C. was three years---Record showed that pre-arrest bail was granted two years ago and accused-petitioners had been regularly attending the trial proceedings during the said period---Trial had been halted largely on account of complainant's conduct---Recalling the interim pre-arrest bail, in circumstances, would serve no useful purpose but would abuse the process of law---Accused-petitioners were not to be prejudiced/made to suffer due to no fault of their own especially, when they were regularly attending the trial proceedings---Trial would not likely to proceed further in the near future---Facts and circumstances of the case suggested that…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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