2006 PLP 1920 (MLD)
SAEED AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1920 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAEED AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1920 (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 2006 PLP 1920 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1920 (MLD) (SAEED AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Shoaib Khan Buzdar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 201, 109 & 34
Destruction of evidence of offence of capital punish ment
Effect
Allegation against accused/petitioner was that he caused the disappearance of dead body of deceased who had been murdered by his (deceased's) wife and daughter Accused was charged with offence under S.201, P.P.C. which did not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused had been involved in the case on statement of co-accused and excepting same there was no other evidence available against accused, which made the case against accused that of further inquiry
Investigation of the case was complete and accused was no more required by police for further investigation
Bail petition was allowed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.
Petition has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.73 of 2006, dated 26-3-2005 registered under sections 302/201/109/34, P.P.C. at Police Station City Leiah.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner as per prosecution story is that Muhammad Yasin remained missing for about ten days. The complainant inquired from the daughter of deceased namely Humaira, who made extra-judicial confession that she and her mother Mst. Shado Mai co-accused had murdered Ghulam Yasin after giving him intoxicated tablets which were brought by Mukhtair Hussain. She also stated that Saeed Ahmad petitioner caused the dead-body to disappear.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case; he is behind the bars, investigation is complete during which the petitioner was not found present at the spot at the time of occurrence and he is no more required by the local police for the purposes of investigation; that no injury has been attributed to the petitioner on the person of deceased. Lastly submits that there is no eye-witness available to the prosecution and case against the petitioner is that of further inquiry.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the bail and submits that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role has been attributed to him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Allegation against the petitioner is of destroying the evidence of an offence of capital punishment however offence under section 201, P.P.C. does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause. Petitioner has been involved on the statement of co-accused and except it no other evidence is available against him which makes the case against the petitioner that of further inquiry. Petitioner is behind the bars, investigation in the case qua the petitioner is complete and petitioner is no more required by the police for the purposes of further investigation and no useful purpose would be served to put him behind the bars for an indefinite period. Further more the petitioner was not found present at the spot during the course of investigation.
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. S.M.B./S-147/L Bail petition allowe