MLD 2020

2020 PLP 1750 (MLD)

ABID — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2020-June-4
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2020 PLP 1750 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties ABID — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
Primary Law (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 1750 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 1750 (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: 2020 PLP 1750 (MLD) (ABID — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Malik Azhar Abbas Waseer for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 394, 337-A(i), 337-F(iii), 337-F(v) & 411

Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, shajjah-i-khafifah, mutalahimah, hashimah, dishonestly receiving stolen property

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Scope

Allegation against accused was that when complainant along with others was present in his agency and counting the cash, three unknown accused committed robbery, snatched cash and on resistance fired upon one of them

Burden of committing the crime in question was pointed towards three unknown assailants, who were already apprehended in the case and were transported to jail on judicial remand

Role of accused as found during identification parade was that he remained on watch and did not enter the premises

Recovery of Rs.20,000/- and a pistol from the accused hardly connected him with the crime as recovery of currency was of general pattern as it was not clear whether these were the same currency notes which were taken away by the accused during the occurrence

Evidentiary value of the recovery could only be adjudged by the Trial Court after recording of evidence of the parties at trial

Case of accused was one of further inquiry as contemplated by S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Investigation to the extent of accused was complete and he was not required for further investigation

Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

S.497

Bail

Principle

Scope

Where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception.

S.497

Bail

Deeper appreciation of evidence

Scope

Deeper appreciation or evaluation of evidence at bail stage is neither desirable nor permissible.

Judgment & Decree

RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, J.

Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Abid, seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.194 dated 17.05.2018 under section 394/337-A(i) / 337-F(iii)/337-F(v)/411, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Mamon Kanjan District Faisalabad.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Muhammad Usman got lodged the instant crime report with the allegation that on 15.05.2018 at 07:15 pm when he along with others was present in his agency and counting the cash, three unknown accused committed robbery with them and snatched cash from the hands of Kamran. When Muhammad Hanan resisted the accused fired upon him which landed on his shoulder. In this occurrence the unknown accused looted total amount of Rs.5,35,000/- and fled away.

3. Heard. Record perused.

4. This is petition for post-arrest bail and only tentative assessment is to be made and deeper appreciation or evaluation of evidence at bail stage is neither desirable nor permissible. It evinces from record that the case in hand revolves around a dacoity occurrence during which one Muhammad Hannan received injuries at the hands of the assailants. During the occurrence the accused persons also looted total amount of Rs.5,35,000/-. As per tale of occurrence mentioned in the first information report, the burden of committing the crime in question was pointed towards three unknown assailants, who were already apprehended in the case and were transported to jail on judicial remand. Even the accused/petitioner was also not nominated in the FIR and the veil was lifted about the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime when he was apprehended by the police being suspected accused and was sent to jail for the purposes of identification parade but even during said proceedings it was found that he has not entered the premises and remained on watch and he has not caused any injury to any prosecution witness. During investigation a sum of Rs.20,000/- and a pistol has allegedly been recovered from the petitioner, which hardly connects the petitioner with the crime alleged against him as recovery of currency is of general pattern as it is not clear whether these were the same currency notes which were taken away by the accused during the occurrence, hence evidentiary value of the same can only be adjudged by the trial court after recording of evidence of the parties at trial. Reliance in this respect is placed on the case of Irslan Zohaib v. The State (2016 SCMR 1217).

5. So far as under section 411, P.P.C. is concerned, it is not disputed that the said offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such like cases bail is a rule and refusal is an exception as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). Due to above mentioned reasons, the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry as completed in section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and investigation to his extent has already been completed. He is no more required for further investigation.

6. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the petitioner Abid is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. SA/A-43/L Bail granted.