2009 P Cr (PLP)
MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus IHSAN ULLAH and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus IHSAN ULLAH and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 P Cr (PLP) (MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus IHSAN ULLAH and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Farooq Akhtar for Petitioner.
- SYED YAHYA ZAHID GILANI, J.--- Mr. Farooq Akhtar, Advocate for accused-petitioner, Mr. Rabnawaz Awan, Advocate for complainant and Mr. Yousaf Haroon, Advocate for State have been heard on the present bail application of Munir Ahmad accused-petitioner who has been refused bail by the lower forums, in case F.I.R. No.301, dated 31-5-2008 of Police Station Cantt. D.I. Khan, under sections 365-A, 379, 511, 337-J, P.P.C.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-A, 379, 511 & 337-J--Bail, refusal of
Accused was arrested on the spot
Prosecution story was though alleged to be unreasonable and unbelievable, but without going deep into the merits of the case, each criminal case had its own peculiar facts and circumstances
Two criminal cases could not be identical
Since human conduct differed, some cases could have a very different and extra peculiar circumstances
In the present case, though accused was alleged to be juvenile, but he was well connected with the crime of abduction for ransom on the basis of the statement of abductee coupled with circumstantial evidence and recoveries
Judgment & Decree
SYED YAHYA ZAHID GILANI, J.
Mr. Farooq Akhtar, Advocate for accused-petitioner, Mr. Rabnawaz Awan, Advocate for complainant and Mr. Yousaf Haroon, Advocate for State have been heard on the present bail application of Munir Ahmad accused-petitioner who has been refused bail by the lower forums, in case F.I.R. No.301, dated 31-5-2008 of Police Station Cantt. D.I. Khan, under sections 365-A, 379, 511, 337-J, P.P.C.
2. According to prosecution case, the complainant Mushtaq Khan, A.S.-I. was informed by somebody that a person is being abducted in a cycle rickshaw. He rushed and intercepted the cycle rickshaw in front of Kotli Imam wherefrom the abductee Ehsan was recovered in semi-conscious condition, duly wrapped in a Burga. The statement of abductee was subsequently recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. wherein he has given details of the occurrence that he was invited by the accused party to their house to purchase some household articles as the accused party was in dire need of money for treatment of a family member. There he was forcibly injected intoxicant and wrapped in Burqa for shifting to tribal area for ransom because the accused party was expecting handsome ransom as he belongs to the profession of goldsmith. During his shifting in cycle rickshaw, he resisted and screamed in semi-conscious condition. Somebody around perceived his abduction and informed the police and he was rescued.
3. The accused-petitioner was arrested on the spot in the aforesaid circumstances and it is noteworthy that the statement of abductee was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. in presence of accused-petitioner and his counsel but they did not avail the offered opportunity to exercise the right of cross-examination.
4. Although it was agitated that the prosecution story is unreasonable and unbelievable, but without going deep into the merits of the case, it is opined that each criminal case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Two criminal cases cannot be identical. Since human conduct differs, some cases may have a very different and extra peculiar circumstances. In the present case, although the accused-petitioner is alleged to be a juvenile, but he is well-connected with the crime of abduction for ransom on the oasis of the statement of abductee coupled with circumstantial evidence and recoveries. Hence, not entitled to bail. The petition is dismissed. H.B.T./86/P Bail refused.