2012 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUR REHMAN — Petitioner Versus SADAQAT and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUR REHMAN — Petitioner Versus SADAQAT and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 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 2012 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUR REHMAN — Petitioner Versus SADAQAT and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Miss Sakina Fida for Petitioner.
- Qazi Babar Irshad for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.382/34
Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint, in order to the committing of the theft, common intention
Contention of the accused was that he was not armed at the relevant time and no recovery had been effected from him, therefore, case of the accused was one of further inquiry
Accused and his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention were duly armed after making preparation for causing hurt and wrongful restraint, and were caught red handed from the spot while snatching mobile phones and cash from the complainant
Complainant had got no ill-will or mala fide against the accused, therefore, no reason and justification existed to extend the concession of bail to the accused
Bail petition of accused was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MIFTAH-UD-DIN KHAN, J.
Petitioner Abdur Rehman has been refused bail by the Courts below in case F.I.R. No.162 dated 14-2-2012 of Police Station, Bhannamari Peshawar registered under section 382/34, P.P.C., therefore, he has moved the present petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Sadaqat on 14-2-2012 made a report to the effect that on the day of occurrence he along with his family members on return from Swat reached near Wakho Pull at 11.30 hours, four persons emerged out of whom one took out his Pistol and snatched away a Mobile Set from him while his other fellow snatched Rs.40,000 from his pocket who was overpowered and in the meanwhile other companions armed with Pistol fired at the complainant upon which people of the locality attracted to the spot and arrested the armed person and petitioner while two other persons escaped from the spot; that one .30 bore Pistol along with one empty and four cartridges and one snatched Mobile Set was recovered from accused Raees while other accused disclosed his name as Abdur Rehman the present petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not armed at the relevant time and no recovery has been effected from him, therefore, case of the petitioner is of further inquiry, hence he is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Learned State Counsel opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner along with his co-accused were caught red handed along with weapon used in the commission of offence, hence prima facie the petitioner is connected with an offence recovered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner along with co-accused were caught red-handed from the spot while snatching Mobile Set and cash amount from complainant. Record further indicates that the petitioner along with his other co-accused in furtherance of their common intention duly armed after making preparation for causing hurt and wrongful restraint are prima facie connected with offence of snatching away Mobile and cash amount from the complainant Sadaqat who has got no personal ill will or mala fide against petitioner, therefore, no reason and justified grounds exist to extend concession of bail to the petitioner.
6. Resultantly, this bail petition is dismissed. M.W.A./157/P Bail refused.