2016 PLP 846 (YLR)
JAFFAR MEHMOOD and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 846 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Hafiz Shahid Nadeem Kahloon, J |
| Parties | JAFFAR MEHMOOD and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal trial |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 846 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal trial as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 846 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Hafiz Shahid Nadeem Kahloon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 846 (YLR) (JAFFAR MEHMOOD and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Aamir Manzoor Awan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 462-B, 462-F & 379
Theft, tampering with petroleum pipelines, etc., Damaging or destructing the transmission or transportation lines, etc.
Accused nominated through supplementary statement
Accused was implicated on suspicion
Involvement in other criminal case without conviction
Effect
Co-accused already enlarged on bail
Accused persons were alleged to have committed theft of fuel from high pressure fuel pipe-line through clump
Held, accused were not nominated in FIR for committing theft of fuel, and their names had been introduced through supplementary statement
No plausible source of information had been given in supplementary statement for implicating accused
No identification parade had been held for identification of accused
Mere suspicion, howsoever grave, could not take place of evidence connecting accused regarding their guilt
Accused were previously not known to complainant--Supplementary statement made by complainant did not disclose as to how he had come to know accused
Accused, in given circumstances, could not be believed to have committed alleged offences, which fell within prohibitory clause of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
Nothing could be recovered from accused during their physical remand
Accused had been involved in the present case on basis of suspicion and hearsay evidence
Accused though were involved in another case, but they had not been previously convicted
Involvement in other case, therefore, did not dis-entitle accused to concession of bail
Co-accused had already been enlarged on bail by Trial Court
Case of accused being at par with that of co-accused, they were entitled to same relief on basis of rule of consistency
Accused had made out case for grant of post-arrest bail under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
Accused were admitted to bail. Jaffar and others v. The State 1980 SCMR 784 and Naeem Akhtar v. The State 1996 SCMR 511 rel.
Mere suspicion, however grave, cannot take place of evidence connecting accused regarding his guilt. Jaffar and others v. The State 1980 SCMR 784 rel. Shaukat Ali Ghauri, Addl: Prosecutor General for the State. Muhammad Farooq Khan Buzdar for the Complainant. Faiz Ahmad, A.S.-I. with record.
Judgment & Decree
HAFIZ SHAHID NADEEM KAHLOON, J.
Jaffar Mehmood and Khalid Mehmood, the accused-petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case FIR No.555-2014 dated 19.09.2014, registered under Sections 462-B, 462-F, 379, P.P.C., at Police Station City Rajanpur.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that during the night of 18/19.09.2014 they while tampering with the high pressure fuel pipe line through a clump committed the theft of the fuel and caused loss to the public ex-chequer.
3. Arguments heard and record perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
4. Admittedly, the petitioners are not nominated accused of the FIR for committing the theft of fuel, but their names have been introduced through supplementary statement made on 05.03.2015, wherein no plausible source of information has been given. No identification parade has been held in this case regarding the guilt of the petitioners. The assertion of the complainant is not admissible in evidence as suspicions how grave cannot take place the connecting evidence qua the guilt of the present petitioners; Reliance is placed on "Jaffar and others v. The State" (1980 SCMR 784). It has also been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as "Naeem Akhtar v. The State" (1996 SCMR 511) that supplementary statement made by the complainant in the case did not disclose as to how actually he came to know the name of the petitioners when in-fact they were neither known to the accused petitioners nor he had disclosed their names in the FIR. The petitioners, therefore, could not be reasonably believed to have committed the offence which falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. During the physical remand of the petitioners, nothing has been recovered, but they have been involved in this case on the basis of suspicion and hearsay evidence.
5. It is also asserted that the petitioners are also involved in other case, but they are not previously convicted, so their involvement in other case does not disentitle them from the concession of bail. Even otherwise Ghulam Sarwar, co-accused of the petitioners has been enlarged on bail by learned trial Court on 11.06.2015, therefore, case of the petitioners is also at par with that of co-accused. Hence, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief on the basis of rule of consistency.
6. The petitioners were arrested in this case on 05.03.2015 and trial has not been concluded so far. Therefore, they cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite period without conclusion of the trial, which is not in sight in the near future. Even otherwise, the petitioners have successfully made out a case of post arrest bail as case of the petitioners also covers under Section (2) 497, Cr.P.C.
7. Keeping in view the above said circumstances and the rule of consistency, this petition is accepted and the petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. SL/J-6/L Application allowed.