ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Crl. Bail Appln. No.
533 of 2009.
Date Order
with signature of Judge
For hearing.
09.06.2009.
Mr. M. Shafi Khan,
Advocate for the Applicant.
Mrs. Rehana
Akhtar, State Counsel.
-
- - - -
An
FIR No. 262/2009 lodged at P.S. Jakson Kemari, under Section 395/34 PPC against
eight unknown armed dacoits who had looted the property mentioned in the FIR at
gun point from the company. According to the complainant dacoits were with
muffled faces and therefore, the complainant did not claim to identify them if
they are arrested subsequently.
However, I
have been informed by the learned State Counsel that two accused Saeed Khan and
Abdur Rehman were arrested on 12.4.2009 in pursuance of the FIR lodged on 08.04.2009.
The role
assigned to the present applicant is that of recovery of 7½ Kgs. cooper wire.
According to the learned State Counsel there is another recovery of the copper
wire weighing about10½ Kgs. Since the case is challaned in the Court and total recovery
of the electric wire is shown that of 30 Kgs, which do not conform to the
weight of the looted wire recovered from the present applicant as well as
remaining two co-accused.
It is
important to note that there is a very fine distinction between Section 411 and
412 PPC, as admittedly the present applicant is Junk Dealer (Kabbari). The offence under Section 411
PPC is punishable with Three years whereas the offence
under Section 412 PPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extent to 10 years and also liable to fine.
I have
asked the learned State Counsel to show me from her police papers as to
availability of any evidence which may show that the present applicant knew the
two co-accused namely Saeed Khan and Abdur Rehman as dacoits or he had any
reason to believe that the property in question purchased by him with the
knowledge that it belongs to a gang of dacoits. The learned State Counsel in reply to such question stated that
there is no such evidence available in the police papers but such evidence can
be produced at the time of trial.
Under the
circumstances I am of the tentative view, that the offence if any on the
strength of the present evidence falls at the most within purview of Section
411 PPC and the maximum sentence for such offence is Three years. It is settled
principle of law that the offences, which do not fall within the prohibitory
clause, the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. The learned
State Counsel could not rely upon any special circumstances, which could
constitute exception for refusing bail to the present applicant.
Under the
circumstances, I grant bail to the applicant in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
solvent surety and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court.
The bail
application stands disposed of.
J U D G E
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, KARACHI
C
rl. Appeal No. 151
of 2006.
Date Order
with signature of Judge
For regular
hearing.
09.06.2009.
Mr. Assadullah Baloch, State Counsel.
- - - - - -
Under the order dated 5.9.2008 it appears that as per the report of Process Server appellants were served with the intimation notice but they did not attend the Court and consequently B.Ws were issued in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each for procuring their attendance as well as notice to the surety under Section 514 Cr.P.C. The order dated 25.9.2008 shows that Mr. Fida Muhammad Khan, had appeared on behalf of appellants on Court notice and stated that the appellant Khalid Mehmood is confined in Central Prison Karachi since 29.8.2007 in Crime No.198/2007. Whereas co-accused Alam Zaib was not served with the bailable warrants and as such the same were repeated against him along with the notice to surety. The Superintendent Central Prison was directed to produce the appellant Khalid Mehmood along with Jail Role in Court on 14.10.2008. I have been supplied the letter dated 13.10.2008 signed by the Superintendent District Jail, Malir Karachi, wherein it is stated that he is not confined in this jail. I am surprised that the counsel has made a statement that aforementioned accused is confined in Central Prison Karachi whereas the letter produced before me is from District jail Malir, Karachi. There appears to be some negligence on the part of office as the order dated 24.9.2008 has not been properly read and consequently the letter of production was issued to the wrong jail. The another thing which has disappointed me, is that the jail report appears to have been flagged ‘A’ neither there is flag ‘A’ nor flag ‘B’ letter on such report as such the report was supplied to me by the learned State Counsel. Issue show-cause-notice to the Assistant Registrar (Criminal) Gulzar Ahmed Sipyo, as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for violating the order of the Court and place file of the case before the Court so loosely managed. I also do not find any flag with the report of bailiff in which he has tried to serve the surety.
Issue production order for production
of accused Khalid Mehmood to the Superintendent Central Prison Karachi, where
he is reportedly confined since 29.8.2007 in Crime No. 198/2007. Issue BWS
through SHO P.S. Garden, Karachi for the production of accused Alam Zaib.
Repeat notice to the surety as well as to the counsel for appellant to show
cause as to why he is absent today and failed to assist the Court which amounts
to professional misconduct referable to the Disciplinary Committee of the Sindh
Bar Council as criminal appeal has to be decided on merits with the assistance
of the counsel who filed power on behalf of the appellants with the undertaking
to assist the Court for final disposal of the criminal appeal.
With these observations, adjourned to
a date in office.
J U D G E