MUHAMMAD JAVED Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. Applicant Muhammad Jawaid is detained in Crime No.413/93 under section 17(1), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The case against him is pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central) where bail application on his behalf was moved which is dismissed by order, dated 25-1-1994.

2. On 10-8-1993 one Munir Ahmad lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Joharabad and he stated that he was Shift Incharge at a food industry and on the day of incident he was busy alongwith the cashier of the firm in distributing the salary to the workers. At 12-30 p.m. there was commotion outside the office and when he came out he saw three culprits, two of whom were armed with pistols and they were speaking in Pashto. In the meanwhile the owner of the factory also came out and seeing him the culprits demanded the cash. The applicant was overpowered from back side while the two culprits with him fled from factory. There is an allegation in the F.I.R. that the culprits also fired while fleeing.

3. I have heard learned Advocate for the applicant and the A.A.-G. It is contended by learned Advocate that the applicant Muhammad Javed was an employee in the same factory and that he was neither accompanied by any other culprits nor he entered the factory to commit Haraba. It is also argued that even if the contents of the F.I.R. are accepted as true, the offence with which the applicant is charged is not covered by the prohibitory clause of subsection (1) of section 497 of the Cr.P.C. and the applicant who has been in jail since 10-8-1993 without even the commencement of trial, would be entitled to bail. In support of these contentions learned Advocate has referred to the case of Muhammad Hanif and another v. State 1983 PCr.LJ 2311, Khalid v. State 1994 PCr.LJ 12 and an unreported order in Ali Raza and others v. State Criminal Bail Application No.967 of 1993. Learned A.A.-G. has not opposed this application and has further contended that because the applicant is not charged with offence, which may be punishable to death imprisonment for life or for ten years, he would not oppose the bail application.

4. I have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. and the investigation papers as also the order of toe learned Sessions Judge refusing bail to applicant. Admittedly, neither the complainant nor any one of the staff members of the factory were robbed of any amount nor any one got injured as a result of firing by co-accused. The applicant is in custody since 10-8-1993. The offence with which the applicant is charged is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. I am of the considered view that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the offence punishable to death, imprisonment for life or for ten years. His case requires further inquiry and I am inclined to grant him bail. The applicant shall be so released if he furnishes one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

5. H.B.T./M-2121/K Bail granted