2004 PLP 1295 (MLD)
KHURRAM SHAHZAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1295 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Sakhi Hussain Bukhari, J |
| Parties | KHURRAM SHAHZAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1295 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1295 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Sakhi Hussain Bukhari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1295 (MLD) (KHURRAM SHAHZAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Naseem Kashmiri for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 8th January, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392/411‑‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Allegation against accused was that he was present at the scene of occurrence at relevant time alongwith his co‑accused‑‑‑F.I.R. showed that the accused was empty‑handed and no role had been attributed to him‑‑‑During investigation nothing was recovered from accused‑‑‑Prosecution case was that the co‑accused was apprehended by complainant and prosecution witnesses at the spot, whereas accused fled away‑‑ Accused was aged about 16 years and did not appear to be previous convict‑‑‑Case of accused being fit for grant of bail, he was admitted to bail. M. Iqbal Vehniwal for the Complainant. Masood Pervaiz for the State.
Judgment & Decree
As per F.I.R. petitioner and his co‑accused Ali Irfan Shahzad entered the house of Khurshid Anwar, complainant gave him beating and snatched Rs.2820. Ali Irfan Shahzad was apprehended alongwith pistol .30 bore and Rs.2820 and produced before police at the time of registration of case whereas Khurram Shahzad (petitioner) fled away from the spot. The petitioner was arrested on 22‑9‑2003. Hence, this bail petition.
2. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and no recovery has been effected from him. He contended that petitioner is aged about 15‑1/2 years and is not previous convict; therefore, he deserves the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant as well as State have opposed the bail petition on the grounds that petitioner is nominated in F.I.R. and he was present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time and that his family members are involved in many criminal cases.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above the allegation against the petitioner is that he was present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time alongwith his co‑accused Ali Irfan Shahzad. According to F.I.R. he was empty‑handed and no role has been attributed to him. During investigation nothing was recovered from the petitioner. The prosecution case is that his co‑accused Ali Irfan Shahzad was apprehended by the complainant and P. Ws. at the spot whereas petitioner fled away. The petitioner is aged about 16 years and does not appear to be previous convict. He is in judicial lock‑up since 22‑9‑2003. As such, without going into merit of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner, therefore,, application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail (in case F.I.R. No.82, dated 23‑8‑2003 under sections 392/411, P.P.C. read with section 13, Arms Ordinance, 1965 (Police Station `Mankera, District Bhakkar) subject to furnishing bail bonds to the sum of Rs.80,000 (Rupees eighty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.R.T./K‑21/L Bail granted.