2005 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD KAZIM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2005 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KAZIM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 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 2005 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD KAZIM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 1st July, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392/395/411/458‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was not named in F. I. R. and he had not been put to any identification test‑‑‑Question of involvement of accused in the case needing serious consideration, case was covered under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into the guilt of accused‑‑‑Disk in question was recovered from the accused after more than one and half months of alleged occurrence‑‑‑Case against accused attracted offence under S.411, P.P.C. which was not .covered under prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused was stated to be previous non‑convict‑‑‑Accused was granted bail, in circumstances. Tabassum Ansar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Tabassum Ansar for the State. Date of hearing: 1st July, 2004. Petitioner Muhammad Kazim through the instant petition has sought for post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.418, dated 13‑9‑2003 originally registered under sections 392/458, P.P.C. with Police Station, City, Hafizabad, District Hafizabad. Later on the police have substituted the offence under section 395, P.P.C. for one under section 392, P.P.C. and also added the offence under section 411, P.P.C: in the same.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on the night between 12/13‑9‑2003 at about 2‑00 a.m. three unknown persons, the description of whom have been given therein, while one of them was armed with gun had entered into the house of the complainant. They awakened him and forcibly took away his Honda Motorcycle. No.4066/HZ along with it's documents, Colour T.V. 21" and C.D. therefrom. They while leaving had tied hands and threatened him to keep quiet.
3. After hearing the learned counsel of the parties and perusing the available record, I find that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He has not been put to any identification test. The question of his involvement in the case, thus needs serious consideration. His case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt.
4. Allegedly, the C.D. was recovered from him on 27‑11‑2003
5. This, if may be so, attracts an offence under section 411, P.P.C. The same is not covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non‑convict.
7. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. H.B.T./M‑657/L Bail granted.