2010 P Cr (PLP)
TASSADAQ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus NOUMAN SAEED and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TASSADAQ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus NOUMAN SAEED and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 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 2010 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: 2010 P Cr (PLP) (TASSADAQ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus NOUMAN SAEED and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Rashid for Petitioner.
- Syed Naveed Abbas for Respondents. Muhammad Ramzan, A.S.-I. with record.
- 5. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 has vehemently opposed the petition and has contended the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are innocent persons who have not committed any offence, rather they have informed the complainant about the theft from his store. Further contends that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have joined the police investigation and they are no more required by the police for investigation, therefore, the petition for cancellation of bail be dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.497(5) & 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 379
Accused had allegedly stolen valuable articles worth Rs. 14,00,000 from the store of complainant
Some stolen articles had been recovered from co-accused during investigation
Rest of the articles were yet to be recovered from the accused
Accused had been nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role
Bail before arrest was an extraordinary relief, to which accused were not entitled in the given circumstances
Pre-arrest bail allowed to accused was recalled accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.
Through this petition, the petitioner/complainant seeks ,cancellation of bail .of respondents Nos.1 and 2 in Case F.I.R. No.103 of 2010, dated 28-4-2010, for the offence under section 379, P.P.C. registered with police Station Mochi Gate, Lahore.
2. The precise allegations against the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are that respondents Nos.1 and 2 in league with Muhammad Farooq have stolen the valuables worth Rs. 14,00,000 from the store of the complainant. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore has granted bail before arrest to respondents Nos.1 and 2/accused vide order dated 10-6-2010.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have stolen the valuables worth Rs.14,00,000 from the store of the complainant, the recovery of which is yet to be effected but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore has granted bail before arrest to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 which was an extraordinary relief and could not be granted to the accused persons from whom some stolen articles have been recovered while the recovery of rest of articles is yet to be effected, therefore, the petition be allowed and the order dated 10-6-2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Lahore, whereby the respondents Nos.1 and 2 have been granted bail before arrest, be recalled.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab has fully supported the application for cancellation of bail.
5. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 has vehemently opposed the petition and has contended the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are innocent persons who have not committed any offence, rather they have informed the complainant about the theft from his store. Further contends that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have joined the police investigation and they are no more required by the police for investigation, therefore, the petition for cancellation of bail be dismissed.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. According to the contents of the F.I.R., the charge against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and their co-accused Muhammad Farooq is that they have stolen valuable articles worth Rs.14,00,000 from the store of the complainant. During the investigation, some stolen articles were recovered from Muhammad Farooq, a co-accused and respondents Nos. 1 and 2, however, the rest of the stolen articles are yet to be recovered from respondents Nos.1 and 2 who have been nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role. The bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief for which the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled in the circumstances of the case.
8. The outcome of the above discussion is that the petition is allowed, the order dated 10-6-2010, whereby the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were granted bail before arrest, is recalled. N.H.Q./T-34/L Pre-arrest bail cancelled.