2007 PLP 1351 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1351 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Jehangir Arshad, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — 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 1351 (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 1351 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Jehangir Arshad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1351 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Javed Shoukat for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392
Accused though was not nominated in the F.1.R., but he was subsequently named by the complainant and was also identified by one of the witnesses during the identification parade-Such facts were sufficient to show that accused was involved in the case
Offence under S.392, P.P.C. fell within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C.
Accused having failed to make out a case for bail, his application was dismissed. Muhammad Bilal Butt for the Complainant. Ijaz Ahmad Khan for the State. Liaqat Ali, S.-I. with Record.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.
Petitioner who is one of the co-accused in case F.I.R. No.400 dated 23-9-2005 under section 392, P.P.C.; Police Station, Saddar Kabirwala, seeks post-arrest bail in the said case.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the accused was nominated in the F.I.R. and on the supplementary statement of the complainant got recorded on 22-12-2005 the petitioner along with others was nominated and that alleged identification parade having been held after a period of more than twenty days, no legal sanctity can be attached to such identification parade. Further submits that, even in the identification parade only one witness identified the petitioner, whereas,' second witness failed to identify him. It is further argued that petitioner is behind the bars since 25-3-2006 but the trial has not yet commenced; and that offence under section 392, P.P.C. is not made out.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as, State have opposed this bail application by arguing that petitioner has got previous record of commission of such like offences; that charge has been framed and that offence under section 392, P.P.C. falls within prohibitory clause, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the' concession of bail. It is lastly argued that petitioner has been duly identified.
4. Arguments considered. Record perused.
5. Although the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. yet he was subsequently named by the complainant and was also identified by one witness during the identification parade and this is sufficient to believe that petitioner is involved in the said case. The offence under section 392, P.P.C. also falls within prohibitory clause, therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for bail. This application, therefore, is dismissed. H.B.T./M-60/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.