HABIBULLAH alias HABIB vs THE STATE
The applicant sought post-arrest bail while facing trial along with nine other persons for an offence under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The learned State counsel conceded to the grant of bail, acknowledging that there was admitted enmity between the parties regarding a piece of land, that the allegations against the applicant were of a general nature, and that no specific role had been attributed to him. Considering these circumstances, the Sindh High Court accepted the application and granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing the requisite security bond. The court laid down that where enmity is admitted and allegations are general without a specific role attributed, bail may be granted to an accused facing trial.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when there is admitted enmity between the parties and allegations of a general nature are made without attributing a specific role to the accused?
- Can bail be granted upon the concession of the State counsel when the circumstances warrant further inquiry?
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.---The applicant is facing trial for the commission of offence under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 along with nine other persons.
2. The learned State counsel has conceded for the bail on the ground that there is admitted enmity between the parties over a piece of land and there are allegations of general nature, no specific role is attributed to the applicant.
3. In the above circumstances bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs,50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- SAADULLAH vs STATE PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Quetta) 280
- SAADULLAH Versus State 2016 PCrLJ 1793