2007 P Cr (PLP)
SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 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 2007 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: 2007 P Cr (PLP) (SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Jaffar Bukhari for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-F(i)(v) & 34
Grant of bail subject to payment of amount to complainant by way of compensation
Trial Court granted bail to accused subject to payment of Rs.19,000 to complainant by way of compensation as promised by accused during `Punchayat'
Trial Court in bail granting order had observed that accused deserved concession of bail
Nothing was in black and white on the file including the police file that accused had ever promised to pay a sum of Rs.19,000 by way of compensation to the complainant
Imposition of condition of payment of Rs.19,000 before enlarging accused on bail was not justified
Same was set aside by High Court allowing revision against order of the Trial Court
Judgment & Decree
NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J.
Brief facts giving rise to the inslant revision petition are that the petitioner had applied for post-arrest bail in a case relating to F.I.R. No.46 of 2005 dated 29-1-2005 under sections 337-F(v), 337-F(i), 34, P.P.C. Police Station Jampur District Rajanpur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 9-7-2005 granted the bail subject to payment of Rs.19,000 to the complainant by way of compensation as promised by the petitioner during a Punchayat.
2. The aforesaid order to the extent of imposition of the said condition is now under challenge through the instant revision petition.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. I have noticed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 9-7-2005 lime-lighted the factors justifying the grant of post-arrest bail to the petitioner. He has clearly observed in the said order that, "the present petitioner rightly deserves for concession of bail". I have also noticed that there is nothing in black and white on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the police file that the petitioner had ever promised to pay a sum of Rs.19,000 by way of compensation to the complainant.
5. All the above factors taken together persuade me to hold that imposition of condition of Rs.19,000 before enlarging the petitioner on bail is not justified and the same is hereby set aside, by allowing this revision petition. Resultantly, petitioner shall be immediately released on bail as ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 9-7-2005, "subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court (learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jampur)".
6. I have been told that the petitioner is behind the bars since 7-2-2005. It is a pity that he remained behind the bars for such a long time, without there being any fault/omission on his part. Hence, the office shall convey the instant order to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jampur, immediately. H.B.T./S-62/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.