2003 PLP 2341 (YLR)
ASGHAR ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 2341 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | ASGHAR ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2341 (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 2003 PLP 2341 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 2341 (YLR) (ASGHAR ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Fazal Rauf Joiya for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (X,V of 1860), Ss.382/411
Bail, grant of-Further inquiry
Allegations against the accused were that he forcibly snatched bicycle from son of the complainant and had subjected him to violence
Accused was not known either to the complainant or his son, but his name was told to them by two persons who had some dispute with father of accused over an Ahata
Said two persons allegedly having wrongly given the name of the accused to the complainant, holding of identification test of the accused was necessary, but he was not put to any identification test
Question of involvement of the accused in the case, in circumstances, seriously needing consideration, his case was of further inquiry
Accused was behind the bars for the last about more than nine months and was previous non-convict
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Zafar Iqbal Waryam for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Zafar Iqbal Waryam for the State. The petitioner Asghar Ali seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.149 dated 6-4-2002, under sections 382/411, P.P.C. Police Station Sadar Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 4-4-2002 at about 2-00 p.m. he forcibly had snatched the bicycle from the son of the complainant Shahid Shabbir Tabbasum and had also subjected him to violence and also shut him in a culvert.
3. The bail has been sought on the ground that he has falsely been roped in: that he was not personally known either to complainant or his son, so in such circumstances he ought to have been put to identification test, but the same has not been done and it would bring his case within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt; that his name was disclosed to the complainant and his son by one Fateh Muhammad and Abdul Rehman as shown in the F.I.R., who were on inimical terms with him there is dispute over the Ahata between them and his father; that the recovery has been shown from field and not from his physical possession; that he is behind the bars for the last about more than 9 months; and that he is previous non convict.
4. Conversely the learned State Counsel has opposed the application.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced from both the sides with the help of the available record.
6. He allegedly has snatched forcibly bicycle from the aforesaid son of the complainant and had subjected him to violence and also shut him in a culvert. The narration of the F.I.R. reflects that he was not known either to the complainant or his aforesaid son. His name was told to them by the two persons mentioned in the F.I.R. namely Fateh Muhammad and Abdul Rehman. It has been contended from his, side that there is dispute over Ahata between them and his father and so they have wrongly given his name to the complainant and in such circumstances holding of his identification test was necessary. Admittedly, he was not put to any identification test. So, the question of his involvement in the instant case in the above circumstances seriously needs consideration. His case, thus, would be covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about more than nine months and is previous non-convict.
8. In these circumstances, I accept this application and admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-735/L Bail granted.