YLR 2005

2005 PLP 1573 (YLR)

GHULAM FARID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.284/B of 2002, decided on 14th February, 2004.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2005 PLP 1573 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J
Parties GHULAM FARID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1573 (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 2005 PLP 1573 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1573 (YLR) (GHULAM FARID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Mrs. Saeeda Asif, for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 14th February, 2002.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Prosecution was not in possession of any evidence against accused apart from his extra-judicial confession that too before complainant and his son which otherwise was a very weak type of evidence

Recovery of crime weapon from accused was, prima facie, not connected with commission of offence as no report of Forensic Science Laboratory was with the prosecution

Two suspects in the case were still at large and it would be unfair, in circumstances, to keep accused behind the bars for unlimited period

Accused having successfully made out a case for further inquiry, he was allowed bail. Syed Hassan Raza Rizvi for the State.

Judgment & Decree

The petitioner seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.402 of 2000 dated 15-12-2000 under section 302, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Kot Mubarik District, Dera Ghazi Khan.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the day of occurrence complainant was present in his house, suddenly he heard the firing outside his house. An alarm being raised by his son Abid Hussain. He ran towards him where other witnesses were also attracted and found Abid Hussain in injured condition. He took him to the Hospital. On the way Abid Hussain succumbed to the injuries. The complainant suspected that one Haji Khuda Bukhsh has killed his son or through somebody else got him killed. Consequently the instant F.I.R. was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.; that empties recovered from the place of occurrence were never sent to the Laboratory; that apart from the extra-judicial confession before the complainant and his son there is no other incriminating evidence with the prosecution against the petitioner; that although .30 bore pistol has been allegedly recovered from the petitioner but this pistol is not connected with the offence as well, and that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about six months.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed this bail petition by contending that the petitioner is prime suspect in the case; that in view of his confession before the witnesses he is connected with the offence.

5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.

6. Since at present the prosecution is not in possession of any evidence against the petitioner apart from his extra-judicial confession that too, before the complainant and his son which is otherwise very week type of evidence. The recovery of crime weapon from the petitioner is prima facie not connected with the commission of offence as yet, no report of Forensic Science Laboratory is with the prosecution. As stated by learned State counsel two suspects in this case are still at large, therefore, it would be unfair to keep the petitioner behind the bars for unlimited period. In the circumstances of the case the petitioner has successfully made out a case for further inquiry. Consequently he is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./G-109/L Bail granted.