2010 PLP 2716 (YLR)
INTIZAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 2716 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, C.J. |
| Parties | INTIZAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 2716 (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 2010 PLP 2716 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, C.J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 2716 (YLR) (INTIZAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.382/411
Theft and dishonestly receiving stolen property
Accused along with his two real brothers and three others was involved in F.I.R. which was recorded after delay of three months
Complainant had let-off three co-accused
Real brother of accused was also allowed bail
Accused was behind the bars for the last three months
Amount Rs.20, 000 was recovered from the accused while a cheque was recovered from the co-accused which was bounced
Case of accused was fully covered by subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. and required further probe into his guilt
Accused was released on bail, in circumstances. Rana Bakhtiar Ali, Deputy Prosecutor-General with Ali Sher, S.-I. Muhammad Yasin Hatif for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, C.J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Intizar Hussain submits that the petitioner along with his two brothers namely, Abdul Ghaffar and Intizar Hussain was falsely implicated in this case. According to learned counsel, in all six persons were named as accused in the F.I.R. and out of them, three were allowed bail on the basis of statement made by the complainant. It is maintained that case of the present petitioner is on similar footing to that of Abdul Ghaffar, co-accused who was allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 19-11-2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.14421/B of 2009.
2. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that delay of three months in lodging the F.I.R. is fully explained in the F.I.R. itself; case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from the case of his co-accused Abdul Ghaffar who was allowed bail by this Court; recovery was effected from the petitioner and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. Heard. The petitioner along with his two real brothers and three others was involved in the F.I.R. which was recorded after delay of three months. The complainant has let off three co-accused of the petitioner by making a statement before the Court. Abdul Ghaffar, real brother of the present petitioner was allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 19-11-2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.14421/B of 2009. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last three months. Rs.20,000 was recovered from the 'petitioner while from Abdul Ghaffar, co-accused of the petitioner, a cheque was recovered which, was bounced. Taking all the facts together, I am of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further probe into his guilt. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of rupees one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court. H.B.T./I-10/L Bail granted.