2004 P Cr (PLP)
FEROZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Ijaz‑ul‑Hassan Khan, J |
| Parties | FEROZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑, (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑, (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Ijaz‑ul‑Hassan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (FEROZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tafseel Khan Afridi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 13th October, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Bail, grant or refusal of‑‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑‑Question of grant/refusal of bail was to be determined judiciously having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case‑‑‑Where the prosecution would satisfy the Court that reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused had committed offence falling in the first category, the Court must refuse bail‑‑‑Where accused would satisfy the Court that reasonable grounds existed to believe that he was not guilty of such offence, then Court must release him on bail‑‑‑For arriving at the conclusion as to whether or not reasonable grounds existed for such belief, the Court would not conduct preliminary inquiry/trial, but would only have tentative assessment i.e. would look at the material collected by police for and against accused and be, prima facie, satisfied that some tangible evidence could be offered which, if left un rebutted could lead to inference of guilt‑‑‑Deeper appreciation of evidence and circumstances appearing in the case, were neither, desirable nor permissible at bail stage‑‑‑Court would not minutely examine the merits of the case on plea of defence at bail stage. ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.399/400/401/148/149/170/171‑‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑‑‑Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S.6‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused had been apprehended from deserted house during a raid conducted by local police‑‑‑Accused were found wearing police uniform‑‑‑Large quantity of arms and ammunition had been recovered from possession of accused‑‑ In absence of enmity or bitterness between accused and prosecution witnesses, it was difficult to believe that massive arms and ammunition were foisted upon accused‑‑‑All such circumstances were sufficient to prove grounds for believing that accused, prima facie, were connected with offence falling under prohibitory clause of S.497; Cr.P.C.‑‑ Accused did not deserve to be released on bail‑‑‑Bail application of accused was dismissed in circumstances. Rahat Shah and 3 others v: The State 2002 PCr.LJ 1309; Munsib Khan v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1264, Ihsanullah v. The State PLD 1995 Pesh. 106 and Ali Anwar v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 974 ref. Fayyaz Khan Chamkani for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑-- ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Bail, grant or refusal of‑‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑‑Question of grant/refusal of bail was to be determined judiciously having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case‑‑‑Where the prosecution would satisfy the Court that reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused had committed offence falling in the first category, the Court must refuse bail‑‑‑Where accused would satisfy the Court that reasonable grounds existed to believe that he was not guilty of such offence, then Court must release him on bail‑‑‑For arriving at the conclusion as to whether or not reasonable grounds existed for such belief, the Court would not conduct preliminary inquiry/trial, but would only have tentative assessment i.e. would look at the material collected by police for and against accused and be, prima facie, satisfied that some tangible evidence could be offered which, if left un rebutted could lead to inference of guilt‑‑‑Deeper appreciation of evidence and circumstances appearing in the case, were neither, desirable nor permissible at bail stage‑‑‑Court would not minutely examine the merits of the case on plea of defence at bail stage. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑-- ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.399/400/401/148/149/170/171‑‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑‑‑Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S.6‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused had been apprehended from deserted house during a raid conducted by local police‑‑‑Accused were found wearing police uniform‑‑‑Large quantity of arms and ammunition had been recovered from possession of accused‑‑ In absence of enmity or bitterness between accused and prosecution witnesses, it was difficult to believe that massive arms and ammunition were foisted upon accused‑‑‑All such circumstances were sufficient to prove grounds for believing that accused, prima facie, were connected with offence falling under prohibitory clause of S.497; Cr.P.C.‑‑ Accused did not deserve to be released on bail‑‑‑Bail application of accused was dismissed in circumstances. Rahat Shah and 3 others v: The State 2002 PCr.LJ 1309; Munsib Khan v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1264, Ihsanullah v. The State PLD 1995 Pesh. 106 and Ali Anwar v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 974 ref. Tafseel Khan Afridi for Petitioner. Fayyaz Khan Chamkani for the State. Date of hearing : 13th October, 2003.