PCRLJ 2004

2004 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD IDRIS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
2003-October-24
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2004 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members N/A
Parties MUHAMMAD IDRIS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
Primary Law (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IDRIS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Khalid Khan and Bashir Ahmad Khan Tangi for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497(2)

Bail, grant of

Principles

Further inquiry

Accused would only be entitled to the discretionary relief of bail, when on the tentative assessment of material brought on record, the Court would reach the conclusion that no reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused was guilty of a non-bailable offence, or an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years

In absence of such finding, the Court was debarred to hold that the case was of further inquiry entitling accused to bail within the meanings of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage, though was not requirement of law pertaining to bail matters, but cases regarding bail were not and could not be decided in vacuum

Court had to form a view by assessing the evidence on record tentatively.

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/404/34

Bail, grant of--Though no one had been charged in the F.I.R. for the murder of deceased, but complainant in his statement had implicated the accused-- Accused was real uncle of the complainant and apparently no enmity existed between complainant party and accused which could have prompted the complainant to implicate the accused

Accused had yet to stand the test of scrutiny on the basis of evidence which was to be recorded by the Trial Court

Bail application of accused was dismissed in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

S. 497(2)

Bail, grant of

Principles

Further inquiry

Accused would only be entitled to the discretionary relief of bail, when on the tentative assessment of material brought on record, the Court would reach the conclusion that no reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused was guilty of a non-bailable offence, or an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years

In absence of such finding, the Court was debarred to hold that the case was of further inquiry entitling accused to bail within the meanings of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage, though was not requirement of law pertaining to bail matters, but cases regarding bail were not and could not be decided in vacuum

Court had to form a view by assessing the evidence on record tentatively. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/404/34

Bail, grant of--Though no one had been charged in the F.I.R. for the murder of deceased, but complainant in his statement had implicated the accused-- Accused was real uncle of the complainant and apparently no enmity existed between complainant party and accused which could have prompted the complainant to implicate the accused

Accused had yet to stand the test of scrutiny on the basis of evidence which was to be recorded by the Trial Court

Bail application of accused was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Shaheen and others v. Arshad Siddique and 2 others 1997 SCM P 18 29 and Safirullah v. The State and another 2003 PCr. LJ 691 ref. Khalid Khan and Bashir Ahmad Khan Tangi for Petitioner. Muhammad Fayaz Khan Chamkani for the State. Javed A. Khan for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 24th October, 2003.