2008 PLP 94 (MLD)
JAVED IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 94 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JAVED IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 94 (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 94 (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 94 (MLD) (JAVED IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rao Abdul Jabbar Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 459/380/394/337-A(ii)/ 337-L(ii)/411
Complainant had. not mentioned the names of the perpetrators in the F.I.R.
Prosecution could not show the basis on which the complainant had implicated the accused in the case after a delay of eleven .months
No identification parade was arranged by Investigating Officer in the case
Accused was behind the bars for the last more than ten years, but the trial had not yet concluded
Identity of accused as one of the perpetrators of crime was open to further probe and inquiry
Delay in conclusion of trial was also an important factor persuasive of releasing the accused on bail
Judgment & Decree
M A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.
laved Iqbal petitioner has prayed for his release on bail in case F.I.R. No. 368, dated 9-11-2001 registered at Police Khushab, District Khushab for offences under sections 459, 380, 394, 337A(ii), 337-L(2), 411, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution's case is that on 9-11-2001 at about 6-00 p.m. Haji Husnain Akhtar complainant was present in his house and his wife Mst. Ghulam Fatima was preparing meals when someone pushed call bell. The complainant opened the gate. Three unknown persons made their way into the house. The third one who was empty handed and wearing Shalwar and Qameez had muffled his face. The complainant was overpowered and taken into a room. Mst. Ghulam Fatima, the wife of the complainant, was also terrorized and brought into the room. The perpetrators got removed four bangles of gold, two rings, a locket and a pair of ear-rings of Mst. Ghulam Fatima. The complainant was also forced to hand over Saudi Riyals. The accused then went away.
3. The complainant after more than 11 months of the occurrence made a supplementary statement on 19-10-2002 on the basis of which the petitioner was arrested on 30-10-2002. During interrogation, two bangles were recovered at the instance of the petitioner on 5-11-2002.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the entire police record. I have noticed that the complainant had not mentioned the names of the perpetrators in the F.I.R. The prosecution has not been able to show the basis on which the complainant implicated the petitioner after a delay of 11 months. In the circumstances of the case, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to get arranged the test identification parade. The petitioner was arrested on 30-11-2002 more than three years ago but the trial has not yet concluded. The identity of the petitioner as one of the perpetrators is open to further probe and inquiry. In addition to it the delay in the conclusion of the trial has persuaded me to release the petitioner on bail. I accept this petition and order the release of the petitioner on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N. H. Q. /J-92/L Bail allowed.