YLR 2006

2006 PLP 1183 (YLR)

IBRAHIM and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1625-B of 2005, decided on 16th March, 2005.
Honorable Judges
Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 PLP 1183 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J
Parties IBRAHIM and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1183 (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 1183 (YLR)?

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: 2006 PLP 1183 (YLR) (IBRAHIM and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Muhammad Amir Khan Niazi for Petitioners.
  • Date of hearing: 16th March, 2005.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.458, 398 & 393

Bail, grant of--Accused were not known to the complainant party, but complainant party came to know about co-accused from identity card which was found lying at the spot and about accused some unknown persons had informed complainant

Record of case was absolutely silent about source through which complainant had come to know about the identity of accused

Accused, according to prosecution case, along with other co-accused had trespassed into the house of complainant for the purpose of committing robbery, but strange enough accused leaving Shalwar and shoes at the spot managed to escape

Bare perusal of F.I.R. revealed that prosecution had concealed true facts while lodging F.I.R.

After their arrest accused were never put to the test of identification to rule out the possibility of their false involvement

Investigation to the extent of accused was complete and they were no more required for said purpose

Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances. Sajid Ali Shad for the State.

Judgment & Decree

MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.

Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.196, dated 15-9-2004 for the offences under sections 458/398/393, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Khushab.

2. In brief the story of the prosecution as penned in the F.I.R. is that on 14-9-2004 at about 8-30 p.m. three unknown persons while trespassing in the house of complainant overpowered the women folk in the house as well as Muhammad Arshad son of the complainant and directed them to hand over the cash and golden ornaments. Upon the resistance by the inmates two of the assailants managed to escape whereas the third person had a grappling and during the process the said unknown person while leaving his Shalwar and shoes at the spot also managed to escape. From the pocket of said Shalwar the identity card of one Muhammad Babar son of Muhammad Habib caste Meo was recovered. Upon search the complainant party also found one Identity Card of Safeer Ahmad son of Mir Baz caste Awan. The complainant came to know about the identity of the petitioner upon a information conveyed to him by someone and on the next day i.e. 15-9-2004 at 11-45 a.m. the F.I.R. was lodged. During the investigation petitioners were arrested on 22-9-2004. The bail application of the petitioners was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Khushab vide order dated 24-2-2005. Hence this petition.

3. Heard. File perused.

4. Admittedly petitioners were not known to the complainant party but they came to known about Safeer Ahmad petitioner from the identity card which was found lying at the spot and about Ibrahim petitioner some unknown persons had informed the complainant. The record of this case is absolutely silent about the source through' which complainant had come to know about the identity of Ibrahim petitioner. According to the prosecution case petitioners along with other co-accused had trespassed into the house of the complainant for the purpose of committing robbery but strange enough the accused leaving the Shalwar and shoes at the spot A managed to escape. The bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that prosecution has concealed the true facts while lodging the F.I.R. After their arrest petitioners were never put to the test of identification to rule out the possibility of their false involvement from the petitioners. Investigation to their extent is complete and they are no more required for the said purpose. Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioners are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./I-115/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.