1999 PLP 2341 (YLR)
SARFARAZ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2341 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | SARFARAZ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2341 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2341 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2341 (YLR) (SARFARAZ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Samad Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 8th October, .1998.
- 3. Mr. Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Kh. Azhar Rashid learned Assistant Advocate -General for respondent No.1/State present and heard. Record of the case perused.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.354/452‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Case of accused did not fall Within the prohibition contained in S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Complainant lady had forgiven the accused and the compromise deed had been placed on the file of the Sessions Court, although the offence was not compoundable‑‑‑ "Bail" and not 'jail" should be the rule in such circumstances‑‑‑Accused was released on bail accordingly. Abdul Ghaffar v. The State and others 1995 PCr.LJ 862 and Tariq Bashir and others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 ref. Kh. Azhar Rashid, Asstt. A.‑G,. for the State. Respondent No.2 in person.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner stands charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 354/452, P.P.C., Vide: F.I.R. No.345, dated 9‑7‑1998 registered at Police Station West Cantt, Peshawar.
2. After having failed to secure bail form the Courts below, the petitioner has now approached this Court for the redress of his grievance saying that he is innocent, falsely charged and, thus, entitled to be released on bail.
3. Mr. Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Kh. Azhar Rashid learned Assistant Advocate -General for respondent No.1/State present and heard. Record of the case perused.
4. Since the case of the petitioner does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., and because of the fact that the lady complainant has forgiven the petitioner, as is evident from the compromise deed which has been placed on Session's file (although the offence is not compoundable), therefore, in my opinion, "bail" and not the "Jail" should be the rule in the circumstances of this case.
5. Reliance may be placed on the following reported cases:‑‑‑ (i) Abdul Ghaffar v. The State etc., (1995 PCr. LJ (Peshawar) 862). (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ S.497‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Bail in offences punishable with imprisonment for less than 10 years is a rule and refusal an exception‑‑ Exceptional and extraordinary cases where bail is declined enumerated". (ii) Tariq Bashir etc. v. The State (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34). In bailable offences the grant of bail is a right and not favour, whereas in non‑bailable offences the grant of bail is not a right but concession/ grace. Section 497, Cr.P.C., divided non‑bailable offences into two categories i.e. (i) offences punishable with death, imprisonment of life or imprisonment for ten years; and (ii) offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years. In non‑bailable offences falling in the second category (punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years) the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. So, the bail will be declined only in extraordinary and exceptional cases, for example‑‑‑ (a) where there is likelihood of abscondence of the accused; (b) where there is apprehension of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence; (c) where there is danger of the offences being repeated if the accused is released on bail; and (d) where the accused is a previous convict."
7. This bail petition is accordingly accepted. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case provided. he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. one lac) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
8. The Additional Registrar (Judicial) shall see that the sureties are respectable persons, hail from the settled areas of District, Peshawar and have sufficient property in their names. Attested copies of their property documents/photo‑copies of their identity cards shall be obtained and placed on file for record. N.H.Q./390/P Bails allowed.