2006 PLP 2493 (YLR)
TANVEER BAIG — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2493 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J |
| Parties | TANVEER BAIG — 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 2493 (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 2493 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2493 (YLR) (TANVEER BAIG — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Irfan Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392 & 395
Co-accused had already been admitted to post-arrest bail and case of accused was not substantially dissimilar to or distinguishable from the case against co- accused
Only difference between case of accused and that of co-accused was that during investigation a motor-cycle had allegedly been recovered at the instance of accused
Complainant had never alleged in the F.I.R. that any motor-cycle had been taken away by accused persons from his house
Only through supplementary statement of complainant for the first time, it was alleged that his motor-cycle had been taken away by the accused at the time of occurrence
Record of investigation had shown that said motor-cycle had been recovered by the police from a deserted and open place and it could not be said with any degree of certainty that the motor-cycle had been recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused
All other aspects of case against accused were identical to those relevant to co-accused who had already been admitted to post-arrest bail
No reason was available as to why accused could not be treated in the matter of bail in the same manner as co- accused
Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Ishfaque Ahmad Chaudhry for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
Through this petition Tanveer Baig petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.36 registered at Police Station Karachi, District Gujrat on 1-3-2005 in respect of an offence under section 392, P.P.C. During the investigating section 392, P.P.C. was deleted from the F.I.R. and the same was substituted by section 395, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by me that a co-accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Yousuf has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 27-9-2005 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.6152-B of 2005. It is not disputed that the case against the present petitioner is not substantiality dissimilar to or distinguishable from the case against the co-accused. The only difference between the case of present petitioner and that of the above-mentioned co-accused is that during the investigation a motor-cycle had allegedly been recovered at the instance of the present petitioner. In this context I have noticed that in the F.I.R. the complainant had never alleged that any motor-cycle had been taken away by the culprit from his house. It was only through his supplementary statement dated 4-3-2005 that the complainant had alleged for the first time that his motor-cycle had also been taken away by the culprits at the time of the occurrence. The record of investigation of this case shows that the relevant motor-cycle had been recovered by the police from a deserted and open place and it cannot be said at this stage with any degree of certainty that the said motor-cycle had been recovered from the exclusive possession of the petitioner. All the other aspects of this case against the petitioner are identical to those relevant to the above-mentioned co-accused who has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court and, thus, there is no reason why the present petitioner may not be treated in the matter of bail in the same manner as the said co-accused. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./T-15/L Bail granted.