2017 PLP 238 (MLD)
MUHBAT JAMAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 PLP 238 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHBAT JAMAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 238 (MLD)?
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 PLP 238 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 238 (MLD) (MUHBAT JAMAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amjad Hussain for Petitioner.
- Deputy Advocate General for the State.
- 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General and have gone through the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the case against petitioner is false, as from ex-facie perusal of FIR, it is evident that at the time of occurrence, petitioner was alone while the complainant had three other persons with him. So no question of use of force or threat of use of force on the part of petitioner arises. Moreover, counsel for petitioner was of the opinion that the said he-goats were taken from the complainant party as a customary fine for transgression of the customary boundaries of pastures by the herd of the complainant party and never as an offence. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General argued that petitioner is habitual offender as has been pointed out in the impugned order, therefore, is not entitled to the bail facility.
- 4. At this stage of the case, we are required to tentatively assess the prosecution evidence and the correctness or otherwise of the plea raised by the petitioner/accused. In para No.4 of the petition, petitioner has pleaded that he took the he-goats of the complainant party as a customary fine and never with any intention of any offence etc. In my opinion, the argument of the counsel for petitioner that the taking of he-goats was not an offence but were taken as customary fine, need further consideration. In this connection, para No.4 of the petition is very relevant, wherein, petitioner has clearly contended that by taking the alleged he-goats, petitioner did not commit any offence and rather the same were being taken as a customary fine. So the trial court is yet to determine that taking of the he-goats is as a customary fine or amounted to any offence. This very fact is sufficient to hold that the case is one of further inquiry and petitioner is entitled for concession of bail.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392
Plea of accused, was, that he had taken the he-goats of the complainant party from his herd of goats as a customary fine; and never with any other intention
Plea taken by accused, needed further consideration
Trial Court, was yet to determine that taking of the he-goats, was as a customary fine or amounted to any offence
Such very fact, was sufficient to hold that the case was one of further inquiry; and accused was entitled to concession of bail
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.
Petitioner who is involved for the offence of section 392, P.P.C., booked through FIR No. 24/15 of Police Station Singul Punial, District Ghizer, seeks his release on bail through this petition. Previously, petitioner moved similar bail petition (B.A. No.42/2015) in the court of Sessions Judge Ghizer, who through his order dated 01-09-2015, did not grant the bail facility to the petitioner.
2. Prosecution story of occurrence is that, on the day of occurrence, petitioner/accused took four he-goats from the herd of goats of the complainant. Petitioner threatened the complainant of dire consequences if the complainant resisted. Police chalked FIR (FIR No.24/15) in the Police Station Singul, arrested petitioner/accused on 09-03-2015, and after completion of investigation, submitted challan for trial of the petitioner.
3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General and have gone through the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the case against petitioner is false, as from ex-facie perusal of FIR, it is evident that at the time of occurrence, petitioner was alone while the complainant had three other persons with him. So no question of use of force or threat of use of force on the part of petitioner arises. Moreover, counsel for petitioner was of the opinion that the said he-goats were taken from the complainant party as a customary fine for transgression of the customary boundaries of pastures by the herd of the complainant party and never as an offence. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General argued that petitioner is habitual offender as has been pointed out in the impugned order, therefore, is not entitled to the bail facility.
4. At this stage of the case, we are required to tentatively assess the prosecution evidence and the correctness or otherwise of the plea raised by the petitioner/accused. In para No.4 of the petition, petitioner has pleaded that he took the he-goats of the complainant party as a customary fine and never with any intention of any offence etc. In my opinion, the argument of the counsel for petitioner that the taking of he-goats was not an offence but were taken as customary fine, need further consideration. In this connection, para No.4 of the petition is very relevant, wherein, petitioner has clearly contended that by taking the alleged he-goats, petitioner did not commit any offence and rather the same were being taken as a customary fine. So the trial court is yet to determine that taking of the he-goats is as a customary fine or amounted to any offence. This very fact is sufficient to hold that the case is one of further inquiry and petitioner is entitled for concession of bail.
5. I, therefore, allow this petition and direct for immediate release of petitioner from custody, if not required in any other case, and that also subject to his furnishing personal bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sound sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. Petition allowed. File be consigned to record. HBT/150/GB Bail granted.