2002 YLR 3675 (PLP)
AAMIR alias AHAMAD MUSHTAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 YLR 3675 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J |
| Parties | AAMIR alias AHAMAD MUSHTAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 YLR 3675 (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 2002 YLR 3675 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 YLR 3675 (PLP) (AAMIR alias AHAMAD MUSHTAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Zafar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑ Blind murder‑‑‑Accused who was not nominated in F.I.R. had been found innocent in three successive investigations‑‑‑Deceased aged about 12 years who was nephew of complainant, went out of his house and two days later his dead body was found in a field and injury on his neck was also discovered‑‑‑ Complainant had suspected that some unknown persons after committing sodomy with the deceased had killed him by strangulating his neck‑‑‑Accused appeared to have been subsequently implicated in the case on basis of last seen evidence which allegedly had been created belatedly to implicate him‑‑‑Alleged extra judicial confession which was made after about three weeks from the date of occurrence, was not believable because person to whom it was made was closely related to the complainant and at the time of recording statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., there was no mention of extra judicial confession‑‑‑Case being of further inquiry, accused was admitted to bail. Mirza Abdullah Baig for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Mirza Abdullah Baig for the State. The petitioner Aamir alias Ahmad Mushtaq is asking for his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.61 dated 8‑2‑2002 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Khurrianwala District Faisalabad.
2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and has been found innocent in three successive investigations and he refers to one of the Zimnis in this connection recorded by the A.S.P/S.D.P.O Jaranwala dated 20‑6‑2002.
3. This appears to be a blind murder Razzaq a boy aged about 12 years, who was the nephew of the complainant, went out of his house and subsequently two days later his dead body was found in a field of wheat and injury on his neck was also discovered and the complainant suspected that some unknown persons after committing sodomy with him had killed him by strangulating his neck.
4. The petitioner, it appears, was subsequently implicated in the case on the basis of last seen evidence which allegedly had been created belatedly to implicate the petitioner as no mention of this was made in the F.I.R. registered thereafter. That another piece of evidence against him is said to be an extra‑judicial confession. He was arrested on 3‑3‑2002 which is after about three weeks from the date of the occurrence.
5. When the police after holding him innocent, moved for his discharge, the Ilaqa Magistrate refused to discharge him.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that extra‑judicial confession is not believable because the person to whom it is made was closely related to the complainant side and that at the time of recording the statement under section
161. Cr.P.C. there was no mention of the extra judicial confession.
7. All the circumstances put forth before this Court and briefly mentioned above do make this case one of further inquiry as far as the guilt of the present petitioner is concerned. Consequently, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A‑643/L Bail granted.