2004 YLR 2110 (PLP)
NISAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 YLR 2110 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam‑uz‑Zaman, J |
| Parties | NISAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 YLR 2110 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 YLR 2110 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam‑uz‑Zaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 YLR 2110 (PLP) (NISAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rai Muhammad Tufail Khan Khari for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th February, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑-‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380 / 411 / 458‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further ‑inquiry‑‑‑Accused was not named in F.I.R., but he was involved in the case on basis of supplementary statement of complainant which was recorded after two years of occurrence‑‑‑Accused, after his arrest, was never put to test of identification parade‑‑ Currency notes recovered at the instance of accused were of ordinary nature and at bail stage, it was difficult to say that said notes were the same which were looted during occurrence‑‑‑Accused though allegedly was involved in other case registered against him, but police officer present in Court was not in a position to say about fate of said case‑‑‑Even otherwise involvement of a person in other case was no ground to refuse him concession of bail, when his case fell within ambit of further inquiry‑‑ Circumstances existed which were sufficient to bring the case of accused within the fold of further inquiry entitling him for concession of bail. Agha Nayyar Latif for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Seeks post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.234 of 2001, dated 1‑10‑2001 under sections 380/411/458, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Garh, District Faisalabad.
2. Heard. File perused. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but he was involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant which was recorded on 8‑4‑2003 i.e. after two years of the occurrence. After his arrest, petitioner was never put to the test of identification parade to rule out the possibility of his false involvement. Allegedly during the investigation, petitioner led to the recovery of Rs.4,400 (looted money) along with a registration book. The currency notes recovered at the instance of petitioner are of ordinary in nature and at this stage, it is difficult to say that these notes were the same which were looted during the occurrence. As regards the recovery of registration book from the petitioner, it not understandable as to why petitioner would keep the same with him for almost two years. Learned Counsel for the State while opposing the bail application also argued that petitioner is involved in other case i.e. F.I.R. No.21 of 1997, dated 21‑1‑1997 registered at Police Station, Garh, District Faisalabad. The Police Officer present in Court is not in a position to say about the fate of this case. Even otherwise involvement of a person in other case is no ground to refuse him the concession of bail when his case falls within the ambit of further inquiry. The abovesaid circumstances are sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the fold of further inquiry entitling the concession of bail. Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./N‑49/L Bail granted.