1999 PLP 507 (YLR)
FALAK SHER ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 507 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Asif Jan and Rao Iqbal Ahmad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | FALAK SHER ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 507 (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 1999 PLP 507 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Asif Jan and Rao Iqbal Ahmad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 507 (YLR) (FALAK SHER ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Shaukat Ali for Petitioner
- 2. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General has referred to an extra judicial confession said to have been made by some accused persons wherein Falak Sher petitioner is not assigned any role. As a matter of fact he is not even mentioned and they claim that the weapons were provided by Falak Sher. What is the legal and' evidentiary value of this extra judicial confession is a matter upon which we do not want to comment and leave it on the Trial Court to draw its own conclusion. Prima facie, reasonable grounds to believe that Falak Sher petitioner is guilty' of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years do not seem to exist. At best, the case against the petitioner may be a matter of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., which entitles him to the grant of bail.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/392/460/109‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Alleged act of killing was not witnessed by anybody‑‑ Occurrence itself was unwitnessed, and no evidence, either ocular or indirect, was available to connect accused with death of four persons‑‑‑Prosecution had referred to an extra judicial confession said to have been made by some accused persons wherein accused was not assigned any role, except that weapons were provided by him‑‑‑Legal and evidentiary value of said extra judicial confession, was to be determined by Trial Court‑‑‑Prima facie, no reasonable ground existed to believe that accused was guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, but case against accused was of further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was entitled to grant of bail, in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Bashir, Asstt. A.‑G for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ASIF JAN, J.‑‑ Falak Sher petitioner aged about 25 years was arrested on the 1st of March, 1998 in pursuance of a case registered vide F.I.R., No.319 of 1997, dated the 30th of December, 1997, at Police Station Farooq Abad of District Sheikhupura, under section 302/392/ 460/109, P.P.C., regarding an occurrence which allegedly took place on the night of the 29th of December, 1997 in a house situated in Mohallah Nizampur situated on the Lahore Sargodha Road, at a distance of about 2 Kilometres from Police Station Farooq Abad of District Sheikhupura where the F.I.R., was lodged on the 30th of December, 1997 by one Bashir Ahmad, regarding the death of four persons, namely, Muhammad Shafi, his wife Mst. Hamidan, their son‑in‑law Maqool and their daughter Rehana Kausar. This unfortunate killing is not witnessed by anybody. Since the occurrence itself is unwitnessed, there is no evidence either ocular or indirect to connect the petitioner with the death of aforementioned four persons.
2. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General has referred to an extra judicial confession said to have been made by some accused persons wherein Falak Sher petitioner is not assigned any role. As a matter of fact he is not even mentioned and they claim that the weapons were provided by Falak Sher. What is the legal and' evidentiary value of this extra judicial confession is a matter upon which we do not want to comment and leave it on the Trial Court to draw its own conclusion. Prima facie, reasonable grounds to believe that Falak Sher petitioner is guilty' of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years do not seem to exist. At best, the case against the petitioner may be a matter of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., which entitles him to the grant of bail.
3. Resultantly, the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. H.B.T./F‑86/L Bail granted.