2005 P Cr (PLP)
BABAR MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BABAR MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 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 2005 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2005 P Cr (PLP) (BABAR MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 392
Complainant himself was not the eye-witness of occurrence
Accused was to be identified by servant of complainant who was eye-witness of occurrence, but accused was not identified by servant of complainant which had made case of accused of further inquiry
Judgment & Decree
Babar Masih petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.268 of 2002, dated 29-7-2002 registered under section 392, P.P.C. with Police Station Civil Lines Gujranwala at the instance of Muhammad Rafique Insari for robbery allegedly committed at his shop on 29-7-2002 at 9-00 a.m.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant stated in his application that he owns a shop by the name of Nasir Studio at Sialkot Road Gujranwala which is run by his servant Muhammad Waqas. On the fateful day two young men entered into the shop in order to get their snaps prepared. In the photo-room one of them took out a pistol and the other robbed four cameras on gun-point description of the culprits was also given in the F.I.R. and it was stated that if the accused were arrested the servant of the complainant could identify them. Thereafter the petitioner along with Aneel Pasha were arrested in case F.I.R. No.455 of 2003 registered at Police Station City Daska. They were in police lock-up when the complainant made a supplementary statement stating therein that he along with his son had seen the culprits in police lock-up at Police Station City Daska and they are the same accused who had committed robbery in their shop upon which the petitioner along with his co-accused was arrested in this case. During investigation the robbed cameras were recovered from the co-accused of the petitioner. The pistol with which the petitioner was allegedly armed at the time of occurrence was recovered from him. After completion of the investigation challan of the case was submitted. He was declined after arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala vide order, dated 28-4-2004. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State have been heard exhaustively and record has been perused.
4. Admittedly the complainant himself was not the eye-witness of the occurrence. The petitioner was to be identified by Waqas servant of the complainant who was eye-witness of the occurrence but he was not identified by the said Waqas which makes the case of the petitioner of further inquiry. Therefore, the instant petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./B-67/L Bail allowed.