2001 YLR2618 (PLP)
GHULAM SHABBIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 YLR2618 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Bashir A. Mujahid, J |
| Parties | GHULAM SHABBIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 189 )‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 YLR2618 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 189 )‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 YLR2618 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Bashir A. Mujahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 YLR2618 (PLP) (GHULAM SHABBIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Asif Saeed for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 15th August, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (JLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Supplementary statement was got recorded after a week of registration of criminal case, wherein the petitioner was. suspected as an accused by the complainant‑‑‑No evidence had been collected during the investigation, worth consideration to connect the accused with the alleged crime‑‑‑Only evidence against the accused was of extra judicial confession of co‑accused which could not be used against the accused‑‑‑Accused having been declared innocent by the Investigating Officer his case fell within the ambit of further inquiry entitling him to grant of bail. Sh. Nasim Rashid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Nasim Rashid for the State. Date of hearing: 15th August, 2001. Ghulam Shabbir son of Allah Ditta is an accused in case F.I.R. No.69 of 2001 dated 14‑3‑2001, under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Saddar Mianchannu, at the instance of Muhammad Iqbal, for commission of murder of his maternal uncle Muhammad Ramzan. The petitioner was arrested on 7‑6‑2001 and after‑arrest bail was refused to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 11‑7‑2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. and no evidence has been collected during the investigation to connect him with the alleged crime; that the alleges extra judicial confession made by his co‑accused Muhammad Rafiq cannot be considered and used against the present petitioner and prayed for grant of bail. Conversely, the bail has been opposed by the learned State counsel by arguing that the petitioner was nominated accused in the supplementary statement of the complainant got recorded on 23‑4‑2001; thereafter in a ' Panchayat' covered in the village, the petitioner confessed his guilt alongwith his co‑accused. Heard. Record perused. The supplementary statement was got recorded after a week of registration of criminal case, wherein the petitioner was suspected as an accused by the complainant. During the investigation, no evidence has been collected worth consideration to connect him with the alleged crime. So, the only evidence is of extra judicial confession of his co‑accused, but this cannot be used against the present petitioner. He has been declared innocent by D.S.P. Mianchannu in his investigation, therefore, the case of the petitioner has been made out of further inquiry and I am persuaded to allow this petition and admit him on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H. B. T./G‑116/L Bail granted.