2004 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUS SAMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Ijaz‑ul‑Hassan Khan, J |
| Parties | ABDUS SAMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Ijaz‑ul‑Hassan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUS SAMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zafar Abbas Zaidi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 15th September, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Principles‑‑‑Neither elaborate nor deep assessment of evidence on record nor detailed discussion on various items of evidence which the prosecution intended to produce at the trial, was possible at the bail stage‑‑‑Admittedly whatever was alleged in the F.I.R., could not in all cases be taken as gospel truth‑‑‑If allegations in F.I.R., prima facie were negated by other material patent on record, then that could also be taken into consideration for the purpose of bail‑‑‑Such defects and doubts in the prosecution case, could not be totally ignored merely because accused was directly charged in the F.I.R.‑‑‑Where prosecution would convince the Court that reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused had committed the crime charged with, then the Court must refuse to extend the concession of bail to accused. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/337‑A(ii)/506/34‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Accused alongwith his brothers had specifically been named in promptly lodged report as one of perpetrators of crime‑‑‑Medical evidence and witnesses of occurrence had fully supported charge against accused‑‑‑Some scope in case though was for further inquiry qua the guilt for accused, but in every criminal case and on that consideration alone, bail could not be claimed by accused as a matter of right‑‑‑Sufficient material being available on file to show that there existed reasonable grounds for believing that accused had been guilty of offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, bail was declined to accused. Arbab Ali v. Khamiso and others 1985 SCMR 195 and Suleman Khan and another v. Buner Khan and another 2003 YLR 181 ref. Syed Manzoor Ahmad for the State. M. Tariq Javed, Dy. Attorney‑General assisted by Pir Liaqat Ali Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Principles‑‑‑Neither elaborate nor deep assessment of evidence on record nor detailed discussion on various items of evidence which the prosecution intended to produce at the trial, was possible at the bail stage‑‑‑Admittedly whatever was alleged in the F.I.R., could not in all cases be taken as gospel truth‑‑‑If allegations in F.I.R., prima facie were negated by other material patent on record, then that could also be taken into consideration for the purpose of bail‑‑‑Such defects and doubts in the prosecution case, could not be totally ignored merely because accused was directly charged in the F.I.R.‑‑‑Where prosecution would convince the Court that reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused had committed the crime charged with, then the Court must refuse to extend the concession of bail to accused. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/337‑A(ii)/506/34‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Accused alongwith his brothers had specifically been named in promptly lodged report as one of perpetrators of crime‑‑‑Medical evidence and witnesses of occurrence had fully supported charge against accused‑‑‑Some scope in case though was for further inquiry qua the guilt for accused, but in every criminal case and on that consideration alone, bail could not be claimed by accused as a matter of right‑‑‑Sufficient material being available on file to show that there existed reasonable grounds for believing that accused had been guilty of offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, bail was declined to accused. Arbab Ali v. Khamiso and others 1985 SCMR 195 and Suleman Khan and another v. Buner Khan and another 2003 YLR 181 ref. Syed Zafar Abbas Zaidi for Petitioner. Syed Manzoor Ahmad for the State. M. Tariq Javed, Dy. Attorney‑General assisted by Pir Liaqat Ali Complainant. Date of hearing: 15th September, 2003.