2015 PCrLJ 1146 LAHORE
SADAQAT HUSSAIN SHAH
versus State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 381 -A & 411---Theft of vehicle and receiving stolen property---bail , grant of---Case of further inquiry---Recovery on the pointation of accused---Effect---Six days, delay in lodging of FIR which had not been explained---Accused was neither named in FIR nor there was direct evidence against him---No one claimed to have seen accused while stealing alleged vehicle---Accused was involved for the first time in case through supplementary statement recorded by complainant 10 days after registration of FIR without specifying his source of information as to how he came to know about the involvement of accused---Validity---Although recovery of alleged stolen vehicle had been effected on the pointation of accused yet provisions of S. 411, P.P.C. were attracted which entailed maximum punishment of three years which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Accused had been behind the bars since his arrest---Matter to the extent of accused was one of further inquiry as contemplated under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---bail was allowed in circumstances.
: 2014 MLD 1781 LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AFZAL alias JANI
versus State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 381 -A & 411---Theft of motor vehicle, dishonestly receiving stolen property---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Implication through supplementary statement of complainant---Source of information not mentioned by complainant---Effect---Accused and co-accused were alleged to have committed theft of car belonging to the complainant and said car was also allegedly recovered from possession of the accused---Accused was not nominated in the F.I.R. and no direct evidence was available against him on the file---Accused was involved in the case through supplementary statement of complainant, without mentioning any source of information---Evidentiary value of such supplementary statement would be adjudged by the Trial Court after recording of evidence---Co-accused had already been allowed post-arrest bail by Trial Court---Although recovery had been effected from possession of accused but the same fell under S. 411, P.P.C. which entailed a maximum punishment of three years, and hence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused behind bars for an indefinite period---Matter required further inquiry---Accused was admitted to post-arrest bail accordingly.
0 Comments