GHULAM SHABIR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Ghulam Shabir, who is facing trial before the Sessions Judge, Larkana, for an offence under Section 17(1) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the evidence and the statutory sentencing framework. The applicant contended that he was not named in the F.I.R. and was falsely implicated due to enmity. The State conceded the bail plea, noting that the sole evidence against the applicant was an identification parade conducted more than three weeks after the incident. The Court observed that while the offence prescribes a minimum punishment of three years, it fails to specify a maximum sentence. Consequently, the Court held that the case could not be interpreted in favour of the prosecution. Relying on the principle established in Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), the Court granted bail to the applicant, subject to the furnishing of a solvent surety of Rs. 100,000.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the only evidence against him is an identification parade conducted after a significant delay?
- Does the absence of a specified maximum sentence for an offence under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 allow for a more lenient interpretation in favour of the accused?
- Can bail be granted when the State concedes the plea based on the weakness of the evidence?
- Section 17(1), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. DER ' The applicant is charged with an offence under section 17(1) the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. 1979 and is facing trial before the Court of learned Sessions Judge Larkana alongwith two others Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the name of the applicant does not appear in the F.I.R. He has been falsely implicated due to enmity and the offence is not punishable for more than seven years.
2. ' Mr. G.A. Shahani, Addl. A.-G. Appearing for the State has conceded to the bail plea of the applicant by stating that the only evidence against the applicant is his identification after more than three weeks of the incident.
3. ' While the offence prescribed minimum punishment of R.I. For three years, it does not specify any maximum sentence for imprisonment. Since no maximum punishment is prescribed for the alleged offence, the case against the applicant cannot be stretched in favour of the prosecution.
4. ' Keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State reported as PLD 1995 SC 34, bail is granted to the applicant subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.