2003 P Cr (PLP)
BASHIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (BASHIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Naseer Ahmad Thaheem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV. of 1860), Ss.420/468/471
F.I.R. against accused was lodged with the delay of about nine years
Allegation against accused was that his brother in connivance with the accused and other co-accused had forged Nikahnama in dispute
Beneficiary of said Nikahnama could be her brother and not the accused
Liability of accused in the alleged offence, needed consideration which could be done at trial
Case required further inquiry into the guilt of accused
Offence alleged against accused did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. and grant of bail in such like cases was a rule and refusal was an exception and no exceptional circumstances had been put forth to justify the refusal of bail-- Accused who was behind the liars for the last about 2 months was entitled to grant of bail.
Judgment & Decree
Bashir Ahmad, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 101, dated 28-6-2002 under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Choubara. District Layyah.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that Naseer Ahmad, his brother on 26-12-1993 in connivance with him and others has forged Nikahnama between him and Mst. Surriya Bibi, the wife of -the complainant.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that Mst..Surriya Bibi is owner of 92 Kanals of land. They had intended to grab the same.
4. It has been contended on his behalf that he has been falsely roped in with mala fide intention; that there is 9 years inordinate delay in lodging the. F.I.R, that he is not principal accused; that there is mere allegation against him is that his brother Naseer Ahmad with his and others connivance has forged the said Nikahnama that he is behind the bars for the last about two months; that he was rightly granted bail by the learned Ilaqa Magistrate but the same was erroneously cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah vide his order, dated 15-8-2002; and that he is previous non-convict.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he in connivance with his brother Naseer Ahmad has forged the said Nikahnama; that his co accused is still at large; and that there is likelihood of his abscondence in case he is released on bail.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. There is almost nine years delay in lodging the F.I.R. The allegation against him as per F.I.R. is that his brother Naseer Ahmad with his and that of his co-accused's connivance has forged the aforesaid Nikahnama. Thus, the beneficiary of the said Nikahnama may be his brother Naseer Ahmad and not he. Se, the question that if he can be held liable for the alleged offence or not, needs consideration. The same is to be seen at the trial. His case, thus is covered under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about 2 months.
8. Even otherwise, the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal an exception.
9. No exceptional circumstance has been put forth to justify the refusal.
10. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition is, therefore, accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Ilaqa Magistrate/trial .Court. H.B.T./B-128/L Bail granted.