2002 PLP 945(1) (YLR)
Haji AHMAD NAWAZ‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 945(1) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | Haji AHMAD NAWAZ‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 945(1) (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 945(1) (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 945(1) (YLR) (Haji AHMAD NAWAZ‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Pervez Aftab for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.489‑B & 489‑C‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Except for the statements of co -accused before the police no independent incriminating evidence was available against the accused showing that he had been dealing in counterfeit currency or used the same for the purchase of any commodity‑‑‑Statement of co‑accused before the police, prima facie, was not admissible in evidence‑‑‑Case of the accused calling for further inquiry, he was granted bail. Pir Atif Sajjad Qureshi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Pervez Aftab for Petitioner. Pir Atif Sajjad Qureshi for the State. Haji Ahmad Nawaz petitioner has sought his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.224 of 2201 registered at Police Station Karor, District Layyah on 23‑10‑2001 for an offence under section 489‑B.C, P.P.C.
2. It was alleged in the F. I. R. that Masroor Ahmad, Inspector/S.H.O. received a secret information that the petitioner dealt with in counterfeit currency and was in possession of a huge amount of fake currency. On receipt of the report the complainant inspector formulated a raiding party and arrested two persons namely Khalid Mehmood and Muhammad Ramzam co‑accused and allegedly recovered counterfeit currency from the possession of Khalid Mehmood co‑accused.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 10‑11‑2001 and admittedly nothing was recovered from him at the time of his arrest nor any counterfeit currency was recovered during the physical remand.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. It has been admitted that except for the statements of Ramzan and Khalid Mehmood co‑accused before the police there is no independent incriminating evidence available against the petitioner to the effect that he had been dealing in counterfeit currency or uses the same for the purchase of any commodity. Prima facie the statement of co‑accused before the police is not admissible evidence.
5. In these circumstances the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. S.M.A.H./A‑509/L Bail granted.