2006 P Cr (PLP)
SHAH JEE and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Ijaz-ul-Hassan Khan, J |
| Parties | SHAH JEE and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Ijaz-ul-Hassan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (SHAH JEE and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem Khan for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 6th December, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.452, 427 & 34
Accused were in jail ever since their arrest--Offences for which accused were charged, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Mere fact that challan had already been submitted in the Court, by itself, could not be considered a good ground to refuse concession of bail to accused, if otherwise his case was found fit for grant of bail
Accused could not be allowed to remain in jail as hostages for the reason that one of their brothers was absconding in the case
Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances. Nazir Nadeem v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 160; Abdul Hameed Khan v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1302; Nasir Baig v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1306 and Gulap Khan v. The State PLD 2004 Pesh. 125 ref. Obaidullah Anwar, Addl. A.-G. for the State. Sahibzada Asadullah for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.
The petitioners, involved in case F.I.R. No.21 registered under section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 452/427/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Qulangai, Malakand, were refused the concession of bail by the forums below vide orders dated 10-9-2005 and 30-9-2005. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court with the similar prayer.
2. Mr. Muhammad Salim Khan, Advocate for the petitioners, invited my attention to case F.I.R. No.20, dated 26-8-2005 registered at Police Station Qulangai, Malakand under sections 302/324/34/114, P.P.C., regarding murder of father of the petitioners at the hand of Jamil Ahmad son of Rahmatullah and attempted to argue that the entire case against the petitioners has been manipulated with sole object to pressurize them to effect compromise with Jamil Ahmad. The learned counsel also contended that except the bare allegations in the F.I.R. there is nothing on the file which could connect the petitioners with the crime in question. To supplement the contentions, reliance was placed on Nazir Nadeem v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 160; Abdul Hameed Khan v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1302; Nasir Baig v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1306 and Gulap Khan v. The State PLD 2004 Pesh. 125.
3. As against that, Mr. Obaidulla Anwar, learned Additional Advocate-General for the State assisted by Mr. Sahibzada Asadullah, Advocate, for the complainant, bitterly opposed the bail application maintaining that the petitioners stand directly nominated in the promptly lodged report for the commission of crime; that challan has already been submitted in Court and that relief of bail has been refused to the petitioners for valid reasons.
4. Be that as it may, without highlighting merits of the case, I find that the petitioners are in jail ever since their arrest on 2-9-2005. The offences for which petitioners are charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The mere fact that challan has already been submitted in Court, by itself, cannot be considered a good ground to refuse the concession of bail to an accused person, if otherwise his case is found fit for the grant of bail. Again, the petitioners cannot be allowed to remain in jail as hostages for the reason that one of their brothers is absconding in this case. The application is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 (three lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. H.B.T./8/P Bail granted.