S. NADEEMULLAH SHAH Versus THE STATE

1. This bail application under sections 497 and 498, Cr.P.C. has been presented on behalf of the applicant S. Nadeemullah Shah, who has been arrested on 17‑4‑1987 for an offence under section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, vide F.I.R. No. 47/87 of Police Station, Civil Lines, Karachi.

2. The prosecution case is that on 19‑3‑1987 at about 00‑10 hours one Shahnawaz lodged a report bearing No. 47 of 1987 at Civil Lines, Police Station .for the missing of his Car No. 139‑578 Crosser Chassis No. KE‑70‑056601 and Engine No. 4K‑1414776 which had been given by him to one of his friends. The car was lifted from Pearl Continental Hotel where it was parked by the friend of the complainant. On 17‑4‑1987 the petitioner was found driving the said car. He was accordingly taken to custody. Bail Application was made before the learned A.C.M. II (South) Karachi, who rejected the same vide order, dated 9‑5‑1987. Another application for bail was again presented before him, which he rejected on 14‑5‑1987. Thereupon the applicant presented an application before the court of Sessions but it was also rejected on 19‑5‑1987. Hence this application.

3. The only ground given by the learned Sessions Judge in his order for grant of bail to the applicant is that the offence is non bailable and that the accused is involved in several other cases of the same nature and hence there was a likelihood that he might abscond after the release on bail.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant relying upon a decision of this Court reported in 1985 P Cr. L J 2704 contended that the applicant is entitled to bail inasmuch as the alleged offence committed by him is punishable only with three years' R.I. The counsel also attempted to argue that the applicant was actually taken into custody on 12‑4‑1987 inasmuch as he was not attending his office as is evident from the letter of the Senior Manager Establishment, Cotton Export Corporation, Karachi, where he is employed. The counsel further contended that the applicant is undoubtedly involved in certain other cases as well but he has been granted bail in those cases and it is the only case where he has been refused bail by the lower Court.

5. Mr. S. Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.‑G., vehemently opposes the bail application in view of the fact that the applicant was involved in as many as 10 cases as detailed below:‑

(1) Case No. 79/78 under section 279/338

(2) Case No. 91/78 under section 420.

(3) Case No. 119/78 under section 224/512.

(4) Case No. 24/79 under section 381/512.

(5) Case No. PX/76 under section 205/468/471.

(6) Case No. 146/79 under section 279/338.

(7) Case No. 149/79 under section 420/468.

(8) Case No. 110/80 under section 224/512.

(9) Case No. 167/78 under section 224/512.

(10) Case No. 158/79 under section 332/353/186

6. The counsel submitted that notwithstanding the fact that it is a case which does not fall within the prohibitory clause yet in appreciation of the fact that the applicant is a habitual offender and is being prosecuted in 10 different cases it is not a fit case wherein he should be admitted to bail.

7. Having heard arguments of the parties representatives I am of the opinion that in view of the fact that the applicant has been bailed out as stated at the bar by the learned counsel in all the cases filed against him and also in appreciation of the fact that the offence allegedly committed by him is punishable only with three years' R.I. there is no reason why should the applicant be denied his right to be enlarged on bail. The learned Sessions Judge seems to be labouring under a misconception that he was involved in other cases of the same nature. His apprehension that the applicant would abscond if he is enlarged on bail is not based on any sound principal but only on whimsical approach.

8. In these circumstances, I am of opinion that the applicant has made out a case to be enlarged on bail. I would, therefore, admit the applicant to bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000 with P.R. in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate.

9. H.B.T./S‑144/K Bail granted