2014 PLP 2283 (YLR)
MUSHTAQ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 2283 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yawar Ali, J |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 2283 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 2283 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Yawar Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 2283 (YLR) (MUSHTAQ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Siddique Kamboh for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.395 & 412
Dacoity, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity
F.I.R., had been lodged with an inordinate delay of about 15 days for which no plausible explanation was forthcoming
Co-accused with a similar role had earlier been allowed bail after a compromise had been effected between co-accused and the complainant
If the complainant had entered into a compromise with co-accused to whom a similar role had been attributed, then accused would also be entitled to the benefit of grant of bail
Assertion made by the counsel for accused that accused was a previous non-convict, had not been negated by Deputy Prosecutor General
As challan had been submitted before the Trial Court, it could be inferred that accused was no more required for further investigation of the case
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Ijaz v. The State 2008 YLR 2585 rel. Ch. Muhammad Akbar, D.P.G. and Nazim Ali S.I. for the State. Nemo for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.
Through this petition filed under section 497, Cr.P.C, the petitioner Mushtaq Ahmad seeks post arrest bail in F.I.R. No.663/2012 dated 9-10-2012 for offence under sections 395, 412 P.P.C. registered at Police Station Gulgasht, District Multan.
2. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the complainant in spite of being informed about the fixation of the case by Nazim Ali, S.I. present in Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely roped in this case by they complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. The F.I.R. has been lodged with an inordinate delay. A co-accused Muhammad Sajid has earlier been allowed bail by the learned trial court on 16-2-2013. The petitioner is a previous non-convict no more required for further investigation of the case.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has vehemently opposed this petition submitting that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and has been found to be guilty during the investigation which has taken place. The petitioner has not only been named in the F.I.R. but has also been duly identified try the prosecution witness Azhar Abbas during the identification parade which was held on 1-11-2012. The petitioner is a member of a notorious criminal gang, hence he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and going through the record, it is clear that the F.I.R. has been lodged with an inordinate delay for which no plausible explanation is forthcoming. The offence is stated to have taken place on 24-9-2013 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged with a considerable delay on 9-10-2013. A co-accused Muhammad Sajid with a similar role has earlier been allowed bail by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Multan on 16-2-2013 after a compromise had been effected between the co-accused Muhammad Sajid and the complainant. If the complainant enters into a compromise with a co-accused to whom a similar role has been attributed then the petitioner would also be entitled to the benefit of grant of bail in terms of law laid down by this Court in Muhammad, Ijaz v. The State 2008 YLR 2585. An assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a previous non convict has not been negated by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General. As challan has been submitted before the learned trial Court it can be inferred that the petitioner is no more required for further investigation of the case.
6. For what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. HBT/M-227/L Bail granted.