1989 PLP 4671 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD BOOTA-‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4671 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BOOTA-‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4671 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4671 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4671 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD BOOTA-‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Qureshi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.379‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑High tension wire worth Rs. 10 lac, placed at different points was found missing‑‑Accused was not named in the F.I.R. nor it was clear in what capacity he was connected with the offence‑‑Accused gave a cheque to investigating officer‑‑Payment by cheque would not amount to recovery of money at instance, of accused‑‑No evidence connecting the accused with the offence was collected by police‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Zia‑ud‑Din for the State
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Akram Qureshi for Petitioner. Zia‑ud‑Din for the State Date of hearing: 18th June, 1989. Muhammad Boota petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and some others, with Police Station, Saddar Chiniot, District Jhang under section 379 P.P.C., vide F.I.R., dated 25‑2‑1989. The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. lodged by Aziz Anjum, SDO, are that some work with regard to the laying of electric cables was being done by the WAPDA and for that reason they had placed‑high‑tension wire at different points. Certain Wapda employees were also deputed to look after the said wire. On 23‑2‑1989, the first informant was told that some of the high‑tension wire was missing. He dent to the spot for physical checking and it transpired that the wire worth Rs. 10 lac was short, on the basis of which the present case was got registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is neither named in the F.I.R. nor he was ever deputed for keeping a watch on the said wire, therefore, his involvement in the commission of the offence is not proved. Submits that during investigation the police has not been able to collect any evidence which could connect him with the commission of the offence. The petitioner has been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
2. I have heard the learned counsel. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. nor from the perusal of the F.I.R. it is clear in what capacity he is connected with the commission of the offence. According to the police file, the petitioner gave a cheque for Rs. 2,93,000 to the investigating agency which, according to it, was a part of the price of the wire stolen. I am afraid the payment of cheque would not connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence as it cannot be termed to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner. So far no other evidence which could remotely connect the petitioner with the said offence, has been collected. In these circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Jhang. I am informed that the case has been transferred to CIA, Faisalabad. In case some evidence is made available against the petitioner, the State may move an application for the cancellation of the bail. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges. SA./M‑1638/L Bail granted.