2008 PLP 26 (MLD)
ROHEEL SANI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 26 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ROHEEL SANI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 26 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 26 (MLD)?
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: 2008 PLP 26 (MLD) (ROHEEL SANI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ishnaq Sahou for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392/411
Complainant in whose clinic robbery had been committed had on the same day implicated the accused in the case in his supplementary statement
Mobile phone had been recovered from the accused which he claimed to be his own, but he could not produce any receipt thereof
Accused was also involved in three or four other cases of similar nature
Complainant had no malice against the accused
Such like cases were on the peak these days and nobody could be allowed to repeat the offence
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that mobile phone, which was allegedly recovered from the petitioner belongs to him; that it was not the said mobile phone which was snatched during the robbery; that the petitioner has also been falsely implicated in three other cases of similar nature; that co-accused of the petitioner have been granted bail by the learned Magistrate; that no case for offence under section 392, P.P.C. is made out against the petitioner; and that it is a case of further inquiry, which attracts the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. thus, the petitioner is entitled to bail.
2. Conversely learned DPG submits that the complainant had named the petitioner in his supplementary statement; that mobile phone, which has been identified by the complainant who is a doctor, has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner; that the petitioner is also involved in 3/4 other cases of similar nature; and that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., hence the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 27-2-2007 on the same day the complainant in whose clinic robbery was committed, who is a doctor, made supplementary statement and implicated the petitioner. One mobile phone has been recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the said mobile phone was his own phone but he had not produced any receipt in that regard. He, is also involved in 3/4 other cases of similar nature. In such like cases i.e. robbery, dacoity and car-snatching the names of the culprits came on the record during investigation. The complainant has no malice against the petitioner. Such like cases are on peak in these days and one cannot be allowed to repeat the offence. In these circumstances, no case for grant of bail is made out. This petition stands dismissed. N.H.Q./R-41/L Bail refused.