2002 PLP 1770 (YLR)
KHALID JAVAID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1770 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | KHALID JAVAID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1770 (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 2002 PLP 1770 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1770 (YLR) (KHALID JAVAID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Arshad Latif for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392/395/412‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Statements of the prosecution witnesses as recorded by the police showed that the accused had muffed their faces at the time of occurrence, therefore, it was hard to believe as to how one of the prosecution witnesses had identified the accused during the test identification parade‑‑‑Stolen tractor had been allegedly recovered from the co accused‑‑‑Matter was reported to the police after a delay of 8 days‑‑‑Case against the accused calling for further inquiry, he was granted bail. Masood Sabir for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Arshad Latif for Petitioner. Masood Sabir for the State. Khalid Javaid son of Ahmad Din, petitioner, has sought his post‑arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.154 of 2001 registered at Police Station Saddar, Mian Channu, District Khanewal, on 10‑6‑2001, for offences under sections 392/395/412, P.P.C.
2. The relevant facts as given in the F.I.R. are that three persons, who were armed with pistols, with muffled faces, snatched Tractor from Nobal and Shamshad P.Ws. It is further stated that after snatching the Tractor, the accused tied the hands of the P.Ws. and forcibly put them in a car. They were taken to some unknown place and after two hours were let off. Thereafter, the afore referred P.Ws informed the complainant, who reported the matter to the Police.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 17‑9‑2001 and after completion of investigation is in Judicial lock‑up.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case and no cogent/incriminating evidence was available against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of offence.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the release of the petitioner on bail. He has argued that the petitioner was fully identified by Nobal P.W. in test identification parade held on 24‑9‑2001 and that the prosecution had no motive to implicate the petitioner in this case falsely.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. According to the statements of the P. Ws. namely Nobal and Shamshad recorded by the police, the accused had muffled their faces at the time of occurrence, therefore, it is hard to believe as to how one of the P.Ws. namely Nobal identified the petitioner during the test identification parade. The stolen Tractor has been allegedly recovered from the co‑accused Muhammad Yousaf. The matter was reported to the police after a delay of 8 days. In these circumstances, the allegation vis‑a‑vis the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C., therefore, I allow this petition and admit the petition to bail, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs. one lac, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. S.M.A.H./K‑162/L Bail granted.