2009 P Cr (PLP)
WAHIDULLAH — Petitioner Versus YOUSAF JAMAL and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WAHIDULLAH — Petitioner Versus YOUSAF JAMAL and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 P Cr (PLP) (WAHIDULLAH — Petitioner Versus YOUSAF JAMAL and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Qasim Khan Khattak for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14
Cancellation of bail, application for
Respondent/accused was not charged in F.I.R., but was charged subsequently in the statement under S.164, Cr.P.C.
No incriminating article had been recovered from the possession of accused
On merits accused had been rightly allowed bail especially when similar application by two of his co-accused against whom bail cancellation application was filed, was dismissed by the High Court in motion
Even the rule of consistency required that application for cancellation of bail of accused could not be granted
Application for cancellation of bail stood dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ PARVEZ KHAN, C.J.
Yousaf Jamal, respondent, is accused for alleged theft in the office of Waheed Ullah, petitioner. Respondent was not charged in the F.I.R. but subsequently, in the statement under section 164, Cr. P. C.
2. No incriminating article has been recovered from his possession, except that after about one month of the occurrence co-accused Shahid Jamal has produced Rs.4,000 to the police which was given to him by one Tariq Mehmood.
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent has been allowed pre-arrest bail, that too, on mysterious manner for which comments of Additional Sessions Judge were called for which would be dealt with administratively.
4. However, as far prayer for cancellation of bail of the present accused is concerned, on merits respondent has been rightly allowed bail, so much so two of his co-accused against whom cancellation was filed i.e. Tariq Mehmood and Shahid Jamal, was also dismissed by this Court in motion. Therefore, even the rule of consistency requires that this application for cancellation of bail cannot be granted.
5. In view of the above, this application for cancellation of bail stands dismissed in limine, being devoid of force. H.B.T./175/P Application dismissed: