Ghulam Muhammad vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 93 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Ghulam Muhammad VS State S. 89---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 147 & 148---Attachment of property of absconder---Restoration of attached property---Limitation---Application of the accused/petitioner for restoration of his attached property was dismissed on the ground of limitation---Validity---Accused who was involved in a criminal case, remained absconder for a considerable period, and proceedings under S. 88, Cr.P.C. were initiated against him and an order for attachment of his land was passed---Record transpired that the petitioner/accused was arrested and he was challaned before the trial Court to face the trial for the murder charge, whereas, the Trial was in progress---In the meanwhile, the petitioner/accused submitted an application for release of the property in question---Only ground on which the Trial Court declined to release the property in question/attached property was that the application was not submitted within the prescribed period of limitation---Period of limitation prescribed by S.89, Cr.P.C., for filing the application for restoration of the attached property is two years from the date of attachment---Date of attachment in the case of immovable property means the date on which the property was practically and physically attached on the spot in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4) in pursuance of the attachment order made under subsection (1) of S.88, Cr.P.C.---Record showed that while passing the impugned attachment order dated 20.10.2016, the Judicial Magistrate simply directed the Tehsildar concerned to attach the property in question of the petitioner/accused---Record further reflected that except the attachment of the property in question, no other steps were taken for implementation of the impugned attachment order---Impugned attachment order was neither made through the Collector of the District nor the possession of the attached property/property in question was taken from the petitioner/accused in accordance with the provisions of S.88 (4), Cr.P.C.---Admittedly, the possession of the attached property remained with the petitioner/accused during the alleged period of abscondence and even now he was in its possession and this aspect of the case was not rebutted by the State Counsel---Since the property in question/attached property was not practically attached on the spot, the same remained in the actual physical possession of accused/petitioner during his alleged period of abscondence and so, petitioner could not get the knowledge of the impugned attachment order till his arrest---In this view of the matter, the period of limitation for restoration of the property in question/attached property had to be reckoned from the date of knowledge and not from the date of the impugned attachment order---Attachment of property under S.88, Cr.P.C., is to procure the attendance of accused person and that object had already been achieved as the petitioner/accused had been arrested and the trial was in progress---Property in question/attached property never remained under the control of the Government and the impugned attachment order had not attained finality as it was not yet implemented under the provisions of S.88(4), Cr.P.C.--- All the said facts and circumstances justified the release of the property in question/attached property from attachment and it was the requirement of law as well, but the Court below had wrongly declined to release the property in question/attached property---Petition was allowed accordingly.

Ghulam Muhammad vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 93 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ