2012 PLP 801 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SHAFEEQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 801 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Qasim Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFEEQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 801 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 801 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Qasim Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 801 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SHAFEEQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abid Hussain Bhutta for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.395/412
Dacoity, dishonestly receiving property stolen in dacoity
Accused was not nominated in F.I.R. and after 26 days of the occurrence complainant in his supplementary statement had shown his suspicion on the accused and others
Accused was not put to any identification test and this fact alone was sufficient to make his case one of further inquiry
Mere presence of accused did not bar grant of bail to him if otherwise he deserved the same
Investigation was complete and challan had been submitted in the court
Accused was not a previous convict
Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395 & 412
Dacoity, dishonestly receiving property stolen in dacoity
Mere presence of accused does not create any bar for grant of bail if otherwise accused becomes entitled for the same. Ch. Muhammad Akbar, D.P.-G. for the State along with Sadiq S.I. with record. Bakht Yar Mehdi for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.
Muhammad Shafique petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.411 of 2011 dated 16-8-2010 at Police Station Muzafarabad District Multan under sections 395/412, P.P.C.
2. Succinctly, the prosecution case is that on the night of 14-8-2010, 12 unknown bandits trespassed into the premises of Messrs Khokhar Cotton Factory and Oil Mills, industrial Estate, Multan held the watchman under the shed of gun, tied him up took away net cash of Rs.7,000 a repeater gun, cell phone and cables valuing Rs.3,90,
440. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 4-9-2010 after about 26 days of the occurrence in which the complainant has shown his suspicion on the petitioner along with others. Further added that no identification parade was held. Lastly submitted that the investigation is complete and the petitioner is previously non-convict. In these circumstances, he may be allowed bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned D.P.-G. assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. The complainant in his supple-mentary statement recorded on 4-9-2010 after about 26 days of the occurrence shown his suspicion on the petitioner and others. The petitioner was not put to test identification parade. This fact alone is sufficient to make it a case of further inquiry. The petitioner is previous non convict. Mere presence of the petitioner did not create any bar for the grant of bail if otherwise accused becomes entitled for the same. The petitioner is behind the bars. The investigation is complete and Challan has been submitted in the Court.
7. Cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees the hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge. N.H.Q./M-369/L Bail allowed.