2008 PLP 289 (MLD)
NAEEM RIAZ and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 289 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAEEM RIAZ and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 289 (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 2008 PLP 289 (MLD)?
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: 2008 PLP 289 (MLD) (NAEEM RIAZ and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Liaqat Ali Butt for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-B
Contents of the F.I.R. had revealed that the complainant himself had not witnessed accused and others abducting his daughter/alleged abductee
Two eye-witnesses cited in F.I.R. had sworn affidavits to the effect that they had not witnessed the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution
Case of accused, in circumstances was one of further inquiry into their guilt
No direct evidence was available on record regarding complicity of accused in the crime
Police had declared accused innocent during investigation
Doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case was created by delay of two days in lodging of F.I.R. which had also not been adequately explained by the complainant
Accused were behind the bars for the last more than seven months and since investigation had been finalized keeping them in continued custody would not serve any useful purpose
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Through this petition, the petitioner seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 152 of 2007, dated 12-4-2007 for offence under section 365-B, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Jalalpur Jattan, District Gujrat.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Mst. Fakhiran, daughter of the complainant, was abducted by the petitioners for the purpose of committing Zina.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is delay of two days in lodging of the F.I.R. that the complainant was not an eye-witness of occurrence; that two eye-witnesses cited in the F.I.R. had sworn in affidavits to the effect that they had not witnessed the occurrence; that during investigation the petitioners were declared innocent by the police; that no role has been ascribed to petitioner No.2 in the F.I.R. and that the petitioners are behind the bars for the last more than seven months who are, therefore, entitled to be released on bail.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. The contents of the F.I.R. reveal that the complainant himself had not witnessed the petitioners and others abducing Mst. Fakhiran Bibi, his daughter. Two eye-witnesses cited in the F.I.R. have sworn in affidavits to the effect that they had not witnessed the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution, therefore, the case of the petitioners is one of further inquiry calling for further probe into their guilt. Needless to mention that at present there is no direct evidence available on the record regarding complicity of the petitioners in the crime. During investigation, the police has declared the petitioners innocent. Further doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case is created by delay of two days in lodging of the F.I.R. which has also not been adequately explained by the complainant. The petitioners are behind the bars for the last more than, seven months and since investigation has been finalized, therefore, keeping them in continued custody would not serve any useful purpose.
7. For what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. In case the alleged abductee is recovered and she makes statement against the petitioners about their complicity in the offence, the complainant shall be well within his right to approach this Court seeking cancellation of bail of the petitioners. H.B.T./N-98/L Bail granted.