2005 PLP 847 (YLR)
NIZAM DIN alias NANNA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑ — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 847 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam‑uz‑Zaman, J |
| Parties | NIZAM DIN alias NANNA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑ — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 847 (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 2005 PLP 847 (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: 2005 PLP 847 (YLR) (NIZAM DIN alias NANNA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehmood Ahmad Alwari for Petitioner.
- ‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.379/420/466‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Accused, no doubt was named in F.I.R. with specific role that he being clerk of an Advocate took away record of a criminal case from copy clerk of Sessions Court and thereafter he removed certain order sheets, but file of present case was absolutely silent about copy clerk from whom accused allegedly took away the file, nor during investigation any copy clerk had been involved in the case‑‑‑Record of case was also silent about the time, date, year in which occurrence had taken place as well as circumstances under which accused took away file from copy clerk‑‑‑Prima facie, said lacunae in the prosecution case, were sufficient to bring case against accused within fold of further inquiry entitling him to concession of bail.
- 2. In nutshell the allegation against the petitioner who is clerk of an Advocate is that he after stealing record of case F.I. R. No.457 of 1999 for the offences under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Saddar Kasur, removed order sheets bearing Nos.67 to 70. Allegedly petitioner asked for Rs.10,000 to return the said documents. The present case was registered upon the statement of Muhammad Aslam Ahalmad to Additional Sessions Judge; Kasur, under the orders of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur.
- No doubt petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with the specific role that he being clerk of an Advocate took away the record of case F.I.R. No.457 of 1999 for the offences under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Saddar Kasur, from the copy clerk of the Sessions Court Kasur and thereafter removed order sheets bearing Nos.67 to 70 but the file of this case is absolutely silent about the person i.e. copy clerk, from whom the petitioner allegedly took away the file, nor during the investigation any copy clerk has been involved in this case. Record of this case is also silent about the time, date, year in which this occurrence took place as well as the circumstances under which petitioner took away the file from the copy clerk. Prima facie the said lacunas in the prosecution case are sufficient to bring the case against the petitioner within the fold of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail. Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.379/420/466‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Accused, no doubt was named in F.I.R. with specific role that he being clerk of an Advocate took away record of a criminal case from copy clerk of Sessions Court and thereafter he removed certain order sheets, but file of present case was absolutely silent about copy clerk from whom accused allegedly took away the file, nor during investigation any copy clerk had been involved in the case‑‑‑Record of case was also silent about the time, date, year in which occurrence had taken place as well as circumstances under which accused took away file from copy clerk‑‑‑Prima facie, said lacunae in the prosecution case, were sufficient to bring case against accused within fold of further inquiry entitling him to concession of bail. Miss Nosheen Tasqeen for the State. Muhammad Iqbal A.S.‑I.
Judgment & Decree
Mehmood Ahmad Alwari for Petitioner. Miss Nosheen Tasqeen for the State. Muhammad Iqbal A.S.‑I. Seeks post‑arrest bail in case F. I. R. No. 105 of 2004 dated 22‑3‑2004 for the offences under sections 379/420/466, P.P.C. registered at Police Station B- Division Kasur.
2. In nutshell the allegation against the petitioner who is clerk of an Advocate is that he after stealing record of case F.I. R. No.457 of 1999 for the offences under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Saddar Kasur, removed order sheets bearing Nos.67 to
70. Allegedly petitioner asked for Rs.10,000 to return the said documents. The present case was registered upon the statement of Muhammad Aslam Ahalmad to Additional Sessions Judge; Kasur, under the orders of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur. During the investigation petitioner was arrested on 24‑4‑2004. Bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur vide order dated 31‑5‑2004, hence this petition.
3. Heard. File perused. No doubt petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with the specific role that he being clerk of an Advocate took away the record of case F.I.R. No.457 of 1999 for the offences under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Saddar Kasur, from the copy clerk of the Sessions Court Kasur and thereafter removed order sheets bearing Nos.67 to 70 but the file of this case is absolutely silent about the person i.e. copy clerk, from whom the petitioner allegedly took away the file, nor during the investigation any copy clerk has been involved in this case. Record of this case is also silent about the time, date, year in which this occurrence took place as well as the circumstances under which petitioner took away the file from the copy clerk. Prima facie the said lacunas in the prosecution case are sufficient to bring the case against the petitioner within the fold of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail. Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./N-1/L Bail granted.