1999 P Cr (PLP)
DOST MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | DOST MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 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 1999 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 P Cr (PLP) (DOST MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Mehmood Lodhi for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 12th March, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365/147/149‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Abductee after his recovery in a police raid had charged the accused for his abduction in his statement‑‑‑Material available on record did not suggest existence of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused had not committed the offence charged with‑‑‑Sessions Court after taking into consideration all the material facts of the case had disallowed bail to accused by means of a speaking order which was neither perverse nor arbitrary and the same did not warrant any interference‑‑ Bail was declined to accused in circumstances, Ijaz Ali Khan v. The State 1968 SCMR 1168 ref. Kh. Azhar Rashid, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Wali Khan Afridi for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Wali Khan Afridi for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 12th March, 1999. The petitioners who stand charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 365/147/149, vide F.I.R. No.667, dated 25‑10‑1998 registered at Police Station Pabbi, District Nowshera, have been refused bail by the Court below.
2. The petitioners have now approached this Court for the redress of their grievance saying that they are innocent, falsely charged and, thus, entitled to be enlarged on bail.
3. Mr. Arshad Mehmood Lodhi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, Kh. Azhar Rashid learned Assistant Advocate‑General for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. Wali Khan Afridi, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 present and heard. Record of the case perused.
4. A perusal of the record would show that the petitioners have been charged for having abducted the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2. After about 22 days the victim was recovered, in a police raid, and when his statement was recorded, he also charged the petitioners, amongst others, for his abduction. In the circumstances, I am convinced, in my mind, that the Sessions Judge, Nowshera (Mr. Jehangir Khan) has duly taken into consideration all the material facts of the case into consideration and after having done so has recorded a speaking order which of course is the result of proper application of mind.
5. Since the impugned order is neither perverse nor arbitrary, therefore, it is not liable to be interfered with. Besides on a tentative assessment of the available record it is not possible for me to come to the conclusion that reasonable grounds to exist for believing that the petitioners have not committed the offence charged with. Accordingly, I hold that the discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge in refusing bail, has been exercised legally/judiciously and is not liable to be set aside. The reasons given by the Judge for not granting bail to the petitioners are quite sufficient/convincing and I do not want to upset the impugned judgment. Reliance is placed on case Ijaz Ali Khan v. The State reported as 1968 SCMR 1168, wherein it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court:‑‑ .... The petitioner who is charged with the offence of murder has been refused bail by the Courts below from which he now seeks leave to appeal. On examining the facts appearing in the order of the learned Judge in the High Court we are inclined to the view that the conditions laid down in section 497, Cr.P.C. for refusing bail to the petitioner were amply fulfilled in this case. The petition is dismissed. "
6. Accordingly, I am of the view that this bail petition is without any substance and is, therefore, dismissed. N.H.Q./310 /P Bail refused.