2006 PLP 2509 (YLR)
KHALID MAHMOOD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2509 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J |
| Parties | KHALID MAHMOOD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2509 (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 2006 PLP 2509 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2509 (YLR) (KHALID MAHMOOD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Aftab Sherazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365, 392, 395 & 412
Accused though was not named in F.I.R., but he was involved in the case on basis of supplementary statement of complainant
Said piece of evidence though had no legal sanctity, but accused, after his arrest, was also put to the test of identification parade and he was identified by the witnesses as one of the accused persons
Looted money was also recovered from accused
.Prima facie ample evidence was on record to connect accused with commission of offence falling within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.--Bail petition having no merits, was dismissed. Muhammad Younas Malik and Javed, S.-I. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM -UZ-ZAMAN, J.
Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.82 of 2005 dated 9-2-2005 for the offence under sections 356/392/ 395/412, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Ghulam Muhammadabad, on the grounds that complainant of this case has compromised with the petitioner, looted money has already been returned to him and that he is no more interested in the prosecution of this case. It is further submitted that petitioner is behind the bars for the last six months and there is no progress in this trial. Further submits that during the investigation fake recovery was planted upon the petitioner just to strengthen the prosecution case. It is lastly argued that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant which was brought on record after one month of the occurrence. Conversely counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail application.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have observed that though petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but he was involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant. Though this piece of evidence has got no legal sanctity but after his arrest petitioner was also put to the test of identification parade and he was identified by the witnesses as one of the accused persons. During the investigation looted money was also recovered from the petitioner. In this view of the matter, prima facie there is ample evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition having no merits stands dismissed. H.B.T./K-39/L Bail granted.