MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus SLATE

ORDER

1. The applicant Muhammad A.kram, son of Jan Muhammad is facing. trial for having committed an offence under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at Police Station Saddar, vide F.I.R. No.114/93. The applicant had applied for being enlarged on bail but the same was rejected by the trial Court as such he has preferred the present bail application.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19-6-1993 at about 6-30 p.m., complainant Islamuddin was going to his house in his car but on the way four boys came in a taxi and ordered him to stop his car near Saint Paul School, Karachi. The said accused were armed with weapons, they snatched his car and took it away. Subsequently, on the same date the complainant lodged the report.

3. Two days after the report was lodged, a police party was on checking duty when they intercepted one car but the driver of the said car tried to drive away. He was followed by a police party and was ultimately caught. From the possession of the said person a pistol was recovered while the ear turned out to be the robbed car of the complainant. Accordingly, the accused was arrested who disclosed his name to be Muhammad Akram, the present applicant.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and so also the learned counsel for the State. It was pointed out that three of the co-accused have been enlarged on bail but the present applicant was refused bail as the car in question was recovered from his possession. He further submitted that there was no link between the recovery of the car from the present applicant and snatching of the car from the complainant as there was no evidence to show that the present applicant was one of the accused who had snatched the car from the complainant. The learned counsel for the State did not oppose this application. I, Pave considered the material available on record and it is an admitted position that no identification test was held in this case. The only evidence against the applicant at the moment is that he was found in possession of the car belonging to the complainant. In other words, the applicant was found in possession of stolen property. The learned trial Judge has observed that the charge has been framed under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Suffice to say merely by framing of the charge under section 17(3) does not mean that the evidence for that offence is available with the prosecution. The learned counsel for the State was unable to point out any evidence to show if the present applicant was one of the accused who had snatched the car from the complainant. In absence of such an evidence, the link between the recovery of the car from the applicant and snatching of the car from the complainant is not established and therefore, prima facie at the most, the applicant will be liable for the offence under section 411, P.P.C. which is not covered by the bar contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. This being the position, the learned trial Judge erred in rejecting the bail application of the applicant.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, bail is granted to the applicant on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

6. N.H.Q./M-1888/K Bail granted.