2017 P Cr (PLP)
QAISER KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | QAISER KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 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 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 P Cr (PLP) (QAISER KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Aftab Hussain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392 & 411
Robbery, dishonestly receiving stolen property
Case being of bail after arrest, only tentative assessment was allowed
Accused was not named in the FIR, but had been involved in the case on the basis of supplementary statement, got recorded by the complainant with the delay of one day
No identification parade was conducted in the case which was a mandatory provision, when accused was not named in the FIR
Co-accused, whose role was quite identical to that of accused had already been allowed bail; keeping in view the rule of consistency accused was also entitled for the same treatment
Evidentiary value of the recoveries, allegedly, effected from accused, would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence
Accused was behind the bars since his arrest without any fruitful progress in his trial
Investigation of the case was completed and accused was no more required for further investigation; his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose
Mere heinousness of offence was no ground to refuse bail, if otherwise accused had become entitled to concession of bail
Case of accused having become one of further inquiry, he was allowed bail, in circumstances. [Paras. 2 & 3 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.145/15, dated 02.06.2015 registered at Police Station Choa Saidan Shah, District Chakwal in respect of offences under sections 392, 411, P.P.C.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has been involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement, got recorded by the complainant with the delay of one day. Admittedly no identification parade was conducted in this case which is a mandatory provision when the accused is not named in the FIR. Reliance can easily be placed upon 1997 SCMR
971. It is also an admitted fact that Amjad Ali co-accused, whose role is quite identical to that of the petitioner has already been allowed bail after arrest by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2016, so keeping in view the rule of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled for the same treatment. The evidentiary value of the recoveries, allegedly effected from the petitioner, shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. The petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since his arrest without any fruitful progress in his trial. The investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation, so his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise the accused becomes entitled to the concession of bail.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. HBT/Q-4/L Bail granted.