2007 PLP 807 (YLR)
ROZDAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 807 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J |
| Parties | ROZDAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 807 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 807 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 807 (YLR) (ROZDAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Javed for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420, 463, 468 & 471
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)
Accused had not been nominated in the F.I.R. in any capacity whatsoever and his name had been introduced in the case through a statement made by a co-accused during investigation of the case
Accused had no role to play in the actual sale or purchase of relevant parcel of land and was not a witness of any transaction of sale or purchase and he was not even a beneficiary of any such sale or purchase
Allegation levelled by prosecution against accused was that he had identified the person at the time of issuance of a Fard Malkiyat by a Patwari and at the time of issuance of Fard Malkiyat
Such identification was merely secondary to the main allegation levelled against co-accused regarding actual sale and purchase of relevant piece of land--Investigation of the .case had already been finalized and a challan had been submitted
Continued physical custody of accused in jail, was not likely to serve any beneficial purpose
Question regarding sharing of common intention by accused with his co-accused and also the question regarding his vicarious liability for the offence allegedly committed by his co-accused, were questions which required further inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr. P. C. --Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Irfan Qadir for the State. Ghulam Hussain, S.-I. with record.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
Through this petition Rozdar Khan petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.320 registered at Police Station B-Division, Kasur on 22-8-2003 for offences under sections 419/420/463/468/ 471, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the petitioner had not been nominated in the F.I.R. in any capacity whatsoever and his name had been introduced in this case through a statement made by a co-accused during the investigation of this case. Admittedly the petitioner had no role to play in the actual sale or purchase of the relevant parcel of land, he was not a witness to any transaction of sale or purchase and he was not even a beneficiary of any such sale or purchase. The allegation being levelled by the prosecution against the petitioner is that he had identified a person at the time of issuance of a Fard Milkiyat by a Patwari and at- the time of such identification the said person was already dead. Such an alleged identification of a person at the time of issuance of a Fard Milkiyat was merely secondary to the main allegation levelled against the co-accused of the petitioner regarding the actual sale and purchase of the relevant piece of land. The investigation of the case has already been finalized and a challan has been submitted and, thus, continued physical custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. In the above mentioned peculiar circumstances of this case the question regarding sharing of common intention by the petitioner with his co-accused as also the question regarding his vicarious liability for the offences allegedly 'committed by his co-accused are questions which require further inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497,'Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./R-17/L Bail granted.