2017 PLP 319 (YLRN)
GHULAM FARID alias FARIDI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 319 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Shahid Hameed Dar, J |
| Parties | GHULAM FARID alias FARIDI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 319 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 319 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shahid Hameed Dar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 319 (YLRN) (GHULAM FARID alias FARIDI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Muhammad Islam for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(1)(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 34 & 109
Qatl-i-amd, common intention, abetment
Accused had been granted bail on merits, deeming his case to be one of further inquiry
If accused absented himself from the Trial Court, he ought to have been issued a notice under S.497(5), Cr.P.C., requiring him to explain, as to why his facility of bail should not be recalled, as accused had absented himself unjustly
Facility of bail as had been recalled by the Trial Court, could not be considered wholly legal
Accused was in jail since 12-10-2015; keeping accused continuously confined in jail, would not serve any useful purpose
Accused, was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances. [Para. 2 of the judgment] Rana Tassawar Ali Khan, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.
The complainant's dissenting stances in FIR No.54/13, dated 13.03.2013, under sections 302, 34, 109, P.P.C. Police Station Saddar Pasrur (Sialkot) and in his supplementary statement, which he rendered on 02.05.2013, fetched the petitioner and order of post-arrest bail from the learned trial court on 16.03.2015, which was recalled in an ex-party fashion by it on 02.10.2015, as the petitioner absented himself from the trial's proceedings on 18.05.2015. His application for bail before arrest was rejected by the learned trial court on 12.10.2015, which led to his arrest in this case, the same day. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioner had been granted post-arrest bail on merits by the learned trial Court on 16.03.2015 deeming his case to be one of further inquiry. If he had absented himself from the learned trial Court on 18.05.2015, he ought to have been issued a notice under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. by the Court, requiring him to explain as to why his facility of post-arrest bail should not be recalled, as he had absented himself unjustly. The way, the petitioner's facility of bail has been recalled by the learned trial Court, cannot be considered wholly legal. He is in jail since 12.10.2015 and he must have learnt a lesson by now as to what it really meant, if one, being on bail, would absent oneself during trial without any just cause. Keeping him continuously confined in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Therefore, this application is accepted and he is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. HBT/G-2/L Bail granted.