2009 P Cr (PLP)
NAZIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal trial |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 P Cr (PLP)?
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 2009 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: 2009 P Cr (PLP) (NAZIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Masood Ahmed Zafar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Accused, no doubt, was nominated in the F.I.R., but Court had to see as to whether the offence under which he was liable to be tried, was attracted in the case or not
No eye-witness of the occurrence was on record
None of the family members knew about the murder of the complainant's husband committed in the house, which was practically impossible as no hue and cry was ever made by the deceased
Such aspect of the case spoke volumes of false implication of accused, as he had already been declared innocent in police investigation and no crime weapon was recovered from him
Evidence based on extra-judicial confession of accused being a very weak type of evidence, could not be believed without corroboration by other independent source
Case against accused needed further inquiry into his guilt and he was admitted to bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.257 of 2008 dated 19-9-2008 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Ghanda Singh Wala District Kasur.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner as per narration of F.I.R. are that he along with his accomplices had committed the murder of husband of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye-witness account of the occurrence and the case registered against the petitioner is merely on suspicion. He further submits that there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record against the petitioner as the complainant herself has also not seen the occurrence. He further argues that the petitioner has been declared innocent in police investigation and no recovery has been effected from him at all. The petitioner is previously non-record holder, therefore, is liable to be released on bail.
4. Learned D.P.-G. opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role. He has also referred to extra-judicial confession made by the petitioner before Mukhtar and Manzoor, in which he had confessed committing murder of the husband of the complainant. He, however, submits that the petitioner has been declared innocent in police investigation and recovery has been effected from the co-accused and not from the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned D.P.-G. and have also perused the record. The petitioner is no doubt nominated in the F.I.R., but I am afraid this Court has to see as to whether offences under which the petitioner is liable to be tried are attracted in this case or not. There is no eye-witness account of the occurrence. Even otherwise, it is practically not possible that murder of the complainant's husband was committed in the house and none of the family members would know that murder has been committed as no hue and cry was ever made by the deceased. This aspect of the case speaks volumes of the false implication of the petitioner as he has already been declared innocent in police investigation and no recovery of any crime weapon has been effected from him as well.
6. As far as argument of the learned D.P.-G. regarding extra-judicial confession by the petitioner is concerned, I am afraid evidence based on extra-judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and it cannot be believed until and unless it is corroborated by other independent source.
7. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand), with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. Petition stands disposed of. N.H.Q./N-18/L Bail allowed.