2007 P Cr (PLP)
AMJAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AMJAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 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: 2007 P Cr (PLP) (AMJAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380, 411 & 457
No direct evidence was available to connect accused with the commission of offence
Recovery of electric iron and torch had been shown against accused, which articles were of general nature
Accused had already been in jail for nearly eight months and the trial had not commenced
Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No.211 of 2005, dated 16-7-2005, registered under sections 457, 380 and 411, P.P.C. at Police Station, Kassowal, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly according to F.I.R. when the complainant woke up at about 4-00 a.m., on the morning of 25/26-6-2005 he found the household things scattered all over the house. On search he found missing, one electric iron, a tape-recorder, a torch, two golden rings, each Rs.11,400 ear-rings and some other golden jewellery articles etc. with the help of tracker search was initiated to discover thieves. The complainant suspected Irshad co-accused, petitioner and one Riaz alias Rajoo.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in this case on the basis of suspicion only and there is no direct or indirect evidence to connect the petitioner. He further submits that main accused Irshad son of Hanif has already been exonerated by the police with whom joint recovery of an electric iron and torch was planted on the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and recovery has been effected from him.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, complainant and State.
6. The record shows that there is no direct evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of an offence. The recovery of electric iron and torch has been shown against the petitioner, the said articles are of general nature. The petitioner has already been in jail for nearly eight months, the trial has not commenced so far. For the above reasons, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.70,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-183/L Bail granted.