2000 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SARWAR alias SARRO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SARWAR alias SARRO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 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: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SARWAR alias SARRO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Inayatullah Khan for Petitioner. Tariq Mehmood Chaudhry for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.395
Accused although was not named in the F.I.R., but he was identified by the complainant in the identification parade supervised by a Magistrate
Accused had led to the recovery of snatched amount of Rs.5,000
Sufficient material had been collected by the police to prima facie connect the accused with the commission of the offence which was a heinous one and fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner. seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 141 of 1998, dated 7-3-1998 registered at Police Station Baghbanpura, under section 395, P.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Muhammad Yaqoob submitted an application to the local police for registration of case against five accused persons with the allegation that he was a truck driver and on 7-3-1998 at 4-30 a.m. was proceeding towards Jallo More on Truck number 6615/PRB. When he reached near octroi post Mehmood Booti five persons whose ages and structures have been given in the F.LR., armed with deadly weapons, suddenly emerged out and stopped him. They snatched Rs.40,000 from him and also took away the truck. He further stated that he and P.W. Ghafoor Hussain could identify the accused.
3. The present petitioner was arrested in another case on 29-6-1998. A pistol .30 bore was recovered from him and was sent to jail. Subsequently, during identification parade conducted by the Magistrate on 7-8-1998, the petitioner was identified by the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,000 was also recovered at his pointation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is in jail since 29-6-1998 and the trial Court has not recorded evidence of even a single witness so far. He is not named in the F.I.R. and as such entitled to grant of bail.
5. Learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail.
6. Although the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but he was identified by the complainant in the identification parade held under supervision of a Magistrate on 7-8-1998. Recovery of Rs.5,000 was also made on his pointation. The police has collected sufficient material prima facie, to connect him with the commission of alleged crime. The offence under section 395, P.P.C. is a heinous and falls within the prohibitory clause. I am, therefore, not persuaded to release him on bail at this stage. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./M-1277/L Bail refused.