2017 PLP 95 (YLRN)
JANNAT GUL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 95 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) |
| Bench Members | Abdul Sami Khan, J |
| Parties | JANNAT GUL — 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 2017 PLP 95 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 95 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) bench comprising: Abdul Sami Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 95 (YLRN) (JANNAT GUL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sher Aman for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.381-A & 411
Theft of a car or other motor vehicle, dishonestly receiving stolen property
Occurrence was unseen as nobody had seen the accused stealing the vehicle in question
No evidence was available against the accused that he was instrumental in taking away the vehicle
Recovery of vehicle from accused at the most attracted provisions of S.411, P.P.C., which carried maximum punishment upto three years
Worth and evidentiary value of the recovery of vehicle, would be seen by the Trial Court after recording evidence
Applicability of S.381-A, P.P.C., would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence
Offences with which accused was being charged, did not fall within the prohibitory clauses of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Bail, in such like cases, was a rule while its refusal was an exception
Accused who was previously non-convict was behind the bars since 18-8-2015 and person of accused was not required for the purpose of further investigation
Continuous incarceration of accused in jail, in circumstances, would not serve any beneficial purpose
Case against accused called for further inquiry into his guilt, within the purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. [Paras. 2 & 3 of the judgment] PLD 1995 SC 34 rel. Sh. Istajabat Ali, D.P.G. for the State and Mumtaz SI with record.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.785/15, dated 04.07.2015 under sections 381-A and 411, P.P.C., Police Station Murree, Rawalpindi.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. It has been noticed that the occurrence reported through the aforementioned FIR was unseen as nobody has seen the accused stealing the vehicle in question. Admittedly there is no evidence against the petitioner that he is instrumental in taking away the vehicle and as far as the contention of learned Deputy Prosecutor General that the vehicle was taken into custody from the possession of the petitioner is concerned, I may observe here that the recovery of vehicle from the petitioner at the most attracts the provisions of section 411, P.P.C. which carries maximum punishment upto three years. Even otherwise, the worth and evidentiary value of the recovery of vehicle would be seen by the learned trial court after recording evidence in this case. As far as the attraction of section 381-A, P.P.C. to the extent of present petitioner is concerned, the same shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. Even otherwise, the offences with which the petitioner is being charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In such like cases, grant of bail is a rule, while its refusal is an exception. Reliance can be placed on PLD 1995 SC
34. Admittedly the petitioner is previously non-convict, investigation of this case qua the petitioner is complete, he is behind the bars since 18.08.2015; his person is not required for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
4. The observations made hereinabove are just tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the disposal of instant bail application only. HBT/J-4/L Bail granted.