2001 PLP 1333 (YLR)
AAMAR YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus SAJID ALI — Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1333 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Kayani, J |
| Parties | AAMAR YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus SAJID ALI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1333 (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 2001 PLP 1333 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Kayani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1333 (YLR) (AAMAR YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus SAJID ALI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khadim Hussain Qaisar for Petitioner.
- Rana Liaqat Ali for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th June, 2001.
- 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 insists that the concession made by Liaqat Ali made out a case of further inquiry and the discretion exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwaia was proper.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of. 1860), S.395
Bail was granted to accused by the Trial Court on the statement of another passenger of the car from which the money was looted stating that accused was not present at the time of occurrence
Said passenger was not the only witness of take occurrence, as there were other persons who witnessed the occurrence and police apprehended the accused and recovered the amount and fire-arm from them in their presence
One witness among others having resiled would not make out a case of further inquiry particularly when the offence was that of dacoity and the dacoits armed with deadly weapons had looted the huge amount
Witness who had no' nexus with the owner of the car or its driver could be won over
Trial Court did not probe into the matter a bit more deeply so as to ascertain as to why said witness resiled from his statement in the presence of the statements of other eye-witnesses connecting the accused with the commission of offence
Trial Court in granting bail to the accused having not exercised its discretion properly, order granting bail to the accused was recalled and bail was cancelled.
Judgment & Decree
Aamer Yousaf, complainant has laid challenge to the order of the Additional Sessions judge, Gujranwala, dated 20-4-2001 whereby he allowed post-arrest bail to respondent No. 1 in a Criminal case vide F.I.R. No.373 registered with Police Station Saddar Gujranwala on 28-9-2000 under section 395, P.P.C.
2. The allegation contained in the First Information Report is that while Saleem Masih was driving the car containing huge amount of cash prize bond, travellor cheque and other amounts on behalf of his employer he was intercepted on the Highway by another ca: from which six persons emerged and looted the said amounts and they had hardly covered some distance when the police rounded them up and got recovered the amounts as well as the weapon of offence. Respondent No.1 was one of those dacoits from whom looted amounts as well as .30 bore Pistol was recovered.
3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala was impressed with the concession made by another passenger of the car from which the amount was looted that respondent No.l was not present at the time of occurrence as he was not apprehended and nothing was recovered from him. Further, he was made to sign the blank papers.
4. Learned counsel contends that such witnesses can easily be procured, however, he was not the only witness of occurrence; there were other witnesses namely Saleem Masih and the police officials including Shafqat Rasheed Inspector/S.H.O. who apprehended the petitioner and recovered the amount and fire-arm, therefore, one witness having resiled from his statement does not make out a case of further inquiry particularly when the offence is that of dacoity and the dacoits having armed with deadly weapon looted the huge amount.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 insists that the concession made by Liaqat Ali made out a case of further inquiry and the discretion exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwaia was proper.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has submitted that it was a serious offence for which concession of bail should not have been extended particularly when the challan was submitted in the Court and the trial was about to commence.
7. I have attended to the arguments of the respective counsels and have gone through the record.
8. I see eye to eye with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant that Liaqat Ali was a passenger who subsequently boarded the car and, therefore, had no nexus either with the employer or driver and as a matter of grace he was allowed to accompany them, therefore, such witnesses could have been won over at any time, this is exactly what has happened. Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not probe into the matter a bit deeply so as to ascertain as to why Liaqat Ali resiled from .his statement in the presence of the statement of other eye-witnesses connecting the respondent with the commission of offence, it was not a proper discretion exercised by him. Resultantly the bail allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, vide his order, dated 20-4-2001 is recalled and cancelled. Respondent shall be taken in custody to face his trial. Application j succeeds. H.B.T./A-280/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail cancelled.