2008 PLP 1632 (YLR)
UMAR DARAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1632 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Saif-ur-Rehman, J |
| Parties | UMAR DARAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1632 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1632 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Saif-ur-Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1632 (YLR) (UMAR DARAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Ahmad Mahmood for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/460
Accused was not nominated in the F.I.R.
Identification parade, under such circumstances, must have been held after arrest of accused which was not conducted
Identification marks of the unknown persons accompanying accused were not mentioned in the F.I.R.
Proceedings conducted for abscondence, were of mechanical nature
No incriminating recovery was effected from accused
Accused had been implicated on suspicion of complainant and the witnesses and disclosure of his co-accused, which, prima facie, had no legal value
Case being of further inquiry, accused was admitted to bail. Ashfaq Ahmad Malik, D.P.G. assisted by Muhammad Mansha, S.-I. with record. Altaf Ibraheem Qureshi for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.
Petitioner seeks bail through this petition in case F.I.R. No.609 dated 30-12-2005 registered under sections 302/460 read with section 17 Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979 at Police Station Yousafwala, District Sahiwal. Allegedly the petitioner along with his co-accused committed Qatil-i-Amd of Muhammad Amjad and Mst. Fauzia during commission of dacoity after breaking into the house of the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner repeated grounds mentioned in this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner remained fugitive from law for a period of more than one year. Sufficient material existed on the record providing reasons to believe that the petitioner was liable for commission of double murder and third who was in the womb of Mst. Fauzia. He was not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. Under such circumstances at least identification parade must have been held after arrest of the petitioner which was not conducted. The identification marks of the unknown persons accompanying the named accused were not mentioned in the F.I.R. The proceedings conducted for abscondence are of mechanical nature. No incriminating recovery was effected from the petitioner. He has been implicated on suspension of the complainant and the witnesses and disclosure of his co-accused which prima facie has no legal value.
5. It is found to be a case of further inquiry to the extent of the petitioner who is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./U-10/L Bail granted.