2003 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM HAIDER and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM HAIDER and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM HAIDER and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Latif Khokhar for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380/411/457
Further inquiry-Complainant had laid suspicion against accused persons that they had trespassed his house and had stolen away his certain articles and cash amount
Said items had not been recovered from the accused and instead they allegedly had paid amount to complainant as price or compensation of the said articles
Question that if in such circumstances of case, accused persons could be held liable for alleged offence, needed consideration
Case against accused persons was covered under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into their guilt
Accused were behind bars since their arrest and were previous non-convicts
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Latif Khokhar for Petitioners. Mehr Khalil-ur-Rehman for the State. Ghulam Haider and Khalid Ahmad petitioners through the instant petition seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.313, dated 28-9 2002, registered under sections 457, 380, 411, P.P.C. with Police Station Saddar, Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on the night between 27/28-9-2002 some persons had trespassed into the complainant's house and they after breaking open the lock of the box-had stolen away his Rs.4,000, golden ornaments, unstitched clothes, ladies' wrist watch, utensils and National Identity Card of the complainant and his father. He laid suspicion against Muhammad Ismail, Muhammad Bilal, Ghulam Haider and Khalil Ahmad. He went to them who denied to have stolen away his these articles.
3. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in on the basis of suspicion; that the alleged stolen articles were not recovered from them, therefore, it is yet to be seen that if they can be liable for the alleged offence; that they were allowed bail and the same was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide order dated 25-2-2003; that since then they are behind the bars, and that they are previous non convicts. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the petition.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The complainant had laid suspicion against them in the F.I.R that they have trespassed into his house and had stolen away his aforementioned articles and cash amount. The same have not been recovered from them and instead they allegedly had paid the amount of Rs.36,000 to him as the price or compensation of these articles etc. The question that if in these circumstances of the case they can be held liable for the alleged offence needs consideration. Hence, their case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into their guilt. They are stated to be behind the bars and previous non- convicts. In these circumstances, I accept the petition and admit them to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./G-268/L Bail granted.