2006 PLP 14 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 14 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Javaid Sarfraz, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 14 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 14 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Javaid Sarfraz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 14 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Zulfiqar Cheema for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.458 & 411
Bail, grant of-Further inquiry
Accused was not named in F.I.R. and it was only through supplementary statement recorded subsequently that he had been involved in the case
Such fact would entitle accused to grant of bail
No identification parade was conducted
Case of further inquiry was made out by accused
Accused was involved in the case on basis of suspicion and on that account; he could not be kept in jail
Accused was behind the bars for the last six months and it would take long time before his case was finally decided
Keeping accused behind the bars for such a long time would not .serve any useful purpose
No concept of punishment before conviction
Accused, in circumstances was entitled to grant of bail. Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1997 SCMR 971 and Muhammad Suleman v. Riasat All and another 2002 SCMR 1304 ref. Muhammad Yousaf Syed for the State with Atta Ullah, S.I.
Judgment & Decree
SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.
The petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, seeks post-arrest bail in case bearing F.I.R. No.222 of 2004, dated 23-11-2004, under sections 458/411, P.P.C., at Police Station Sanawan, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Briefly the facts of this case are that on the eventful night i.e. 22-11-2004 at midnight 8 unknown persons duly armed with deadly weapons entered into the house of the complainant and committed theft of golden ornaments and other household articles.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and it is only in the supplementary statement that his name has appeared; that the allegation against the petitioner is based on suspicion as he is alleged to have been seen on a day earlier near the place of the occurrence; that this itself requires further inquiry to the guilt of the petitioner thus entitling him to grant of bail; that identification parade was not held in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail petition and submits that wrist watch has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner.
5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and it is only through the supplementary statement recorded on 31-11-2004 that he has been involved. The above entitles the petitioner to grant of bail. Ghulam Qadir v. The State (2003 YLR 1858(1)) is referred. No identification parade was conducted. While relying upon Muhammad Rafique v. The State (1997 SCMR 971) and Muhammad Suleman v. Riasat Ali and another (2002 SCMR 1304), case of further inquiry is made out by the present petitioner thus entitling him to grant of bail. The petitioner has been involved in this case on the basis of suspicion and on this account, he cannot be kept in jail. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last six months and it will take long time before his trial is finally decided, therefore, keeping him behind the bars for such a long time would not serve any useful purpose. There is no concept of punishment before conviction. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail.
6. In light of above what has been discussed, while accepting this petition, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-1379/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.