2010 PLP 766 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD BILAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 766 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BILAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 766 (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 2010 PLP 766 (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: 2010 PLP 766 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD BILAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Faqir Muhammad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302
Qatl-i-amd
Accused was not nominated in the F.I.R. and it was a blind murder
Implication of accused being doubtful, benefit of doubt would go to accused even at bail stage
No evidence was available to connect accused with commission of the offence
Judgment & Decree
HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.
Through this petition under section 497, Cr. P.C. , petitioner Muhammad Bilal son of Allah Yar, seeks after-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.98, dated 14-4-2009, registered at Police Station Fateh Shah, District Vehari, for an offence under section 302, P.P.C., at the instance of Abdul Ghafoor, respondent No.2.
2. Brief facts, as narrated in the F.I.R., are that a dead body (later on to be identified as the body of Rashid Ahmad) lying in a locked box was recovered from the official place of canal P.I. near the land of Farooq Ahmed below the eastern Patri of the Canal. 3 Bail has been declined to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, vide order, dated 13-7-2009.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a blind murder, the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R.; only connecting evidence in the hand of the prosecution is the recovery of silver ring of the deceased allegedly effected at the instance of the petitioner. Makes reliance on the case reported in PLD 1989 SC
585. Further submits that the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry.
5. On the other side, learned ADPP submits that the challan was submitted on 26-5-2009; that the recovery of silver ring of the deceased from the petitioner connects him with the occurrence therefore the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the police record. The petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. It was a blind murder, the implication of the petitioner apparently is doubtful. The benefit of doubt would go to the accused even at bail stage. I am fortified from the judgments reported as Babar Hussain v. Muhammad Rashid Khan and another (2000 PCr.LJ 980 Supreme Court (AJ&K). In another case reported as Amir v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 277), the honourable Supreme Court observed that for purposes of bail, law not to be stretched in favour of prosecution; benefit of doubt, if any arising, must go to accused.
7. At present apparently there is no evidence in the land of the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to the deposit of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) in cash by the petitioner with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. The observations made in this bail-granting order are of tentative nature, which will not prejudice the case of either side during trial. H.B.T./M-14/L Bail granted.