STATE Versus ABDULLAH

ORDER

1. The respondents are facing trial for offence under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 before the Court of learned Additional Session$ Judge, Jacobabad. Before the Court, bail application alongwith affidavits of the complainant party was filed. The witnesses had exonerated the respondents from the charge. On such ground, the respondents were allowed bail. On suo motu notice the respondents were called.

2. I have heard Mr. Vakeel Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate, for the State and Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, Advocate for the respondent.

3. The learned State counsel does not support the show-cause notice on the ground that the witnesses had exonerated the respondents of the allegation. Besides the learned trial Court had properly exercised its jurisdiction while granted bail to the respondents. Besides the learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the cases reported in 1979 S C M R 137, 1988 S C M R 474 and 1976 S C M R 360 in support of the impugned order taken by the learned trial Court. Show-cause notice is discharged.

4. N.H.Q./880/FSC

5. Notice discharged.