HATIM Versus STATE

ORDER

1. This bail application has been filed on behalf of accused Hatim and others who have been challaned for offence under sections 399, 402, P.P.C. read with section 13-D Arms Ordinance in Crime No.14/93 of Police Station Abdul Rehman Unar. A bail application was moved on behalf of the applicants in the Court of Sessions Judge, Khairpur and the same was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 23-10-1993. As such this bail application has been filed before this Court.

2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants is that section 398, P.P.C. for which the present applicants have been challaned is not applicable even according to the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. He has further contended that even if the alleged recovery of the weapons is believed to be true the offence will not fall within the mischief of section., 399, P.P.C. as according to him no evidence has been collected by the prosecution to prove that the applicants had made any preparation for committing dacoity. Merely sitting armed, will not according to him, bring the case of the accused within the mischief of section 399, P.P.C. The learned counsel for the applicants has relied on the cases reported in 1990 P Cr. L J 41; 1989 P Cr. L J 1256; 1987 P Cr. L J 1607 and 1986 P Cr. L J 2057.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Mr. Abdul Sattar Chohan has conceded that no evidence has been collected against the applicants to show that they committed any offence punishable under section 398/399, P.P.C. He has further conceded that in view of the above A facts even otherwise the case of the present applicants would fall within the scope of further inquiry. As such he did not oppose the grant of bail to the applicants.

4. For the aforesaid reasons and after considering all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants and also after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the State who did not raise any objection for the grant of bail to the applicants and after going through the police papers B including the F.I.R. I am of the view that the case of the applicants required further inquiry and was covered under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Accordingly I had ordered by a short order, dated 7-11-1993 that the applicants be released on bail by furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and these are the reasons for the same.

5. N.H.Q./H-374/K Bail granted.