2023 PLP 967 (SCMR)
ADEEL MANZOOR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2023 PLP 967 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Tariq Masood, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ |
| Parties | ADEEL MANZOOR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 967 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP 967 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Tariq Masood, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 967 (SCMR) (ADEEL MANZOOR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar M. Latif Khan Khosa, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (via video link from Lahore) for Petitioner along with Petitioner in person (at Islamabad).
- Muhammad Yaseen Hatif, Advocate Supreme Court (via video link from Lahore) for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 19.02.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 32166-B of 2022)
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 380 & 452
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Stealing household articles
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Complainant was husband of the sister of the accused, and she had filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles which was decreed ex-parte and in the execution proceedings, the bailiff was appointed to recover the said articles
On the date of occurrence of present FIR, the bailiff visited the house of complainant but failed to recover the articles
According to the bailiff, the complainant was not present in the house and he kept on waiting for two hours and thus proceedings remained unsuccessful
While lodging the FIR, the complainant had totally suppressed the relationship of the accused with the complainant and also suppressed the fact of ex-parte decree
Even the arrival of the bailiff had been suppressed
All such circumstances clearly indicated the mala fide and ulterior motive on the part of the complainant
Co-accused, who was the father-in-law of the complainant was also nominated as one of the accused but during the investigation it was opined by the Investigating Officer that he was not present there and his bail was confirmed, which order was not challenged
Case of the accused was at par with his co-accused because the role against both of them was the same, mentioned in the FIR
Accused had also joined the investigation
Since accused remained successful in proving the mala fide on the part of the complainant, petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and pre-arrest bail already granted to the accused was confirmed. Muhammad Jaffar, Additional P.G. Punjab, Amir Malik, DSP, Ghulam Mustafa, IO and M. Razzaq, SI (through video link from Lahore) for the State. Muhammad Yaseen Hatif, Advocate Supreme Court (via video link from Lahore) for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.
The petitioner Adeel Manzoor through this petition has impugned the order dated 19.09.2022 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby, pre-arrest bail was declined to him in case FIR No. 647 dated 07.04.2022, registered at Police Station Sundar District Lahore, under sections 380 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
2. The allegation against the petitioner, his co-accused Touqeer, Manzoor Ahmed and seven other un-known persons is that they stole away house hold articles of the complainant.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APG and counsel for the complainant, we observed that complainant Khudadad Bhandara is husband of the sister of the petitioner and she had filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles which was decreed ex-parte and in the execution proceedings, the bailiff was appointed to recover the said articles. On 24.03.2022, which is the date of occurrence of this case, the bailiff visited the house of the complainant but failed to recover the same. According to the bailiff, the complainant was not present in the house and he kept on waiting for two hours and thus proceedings remained un-successful. While lodging the FIR, the complainant had totally suppressed the relationship of the petitioner with the complainant and also suppressed the fact of ex-parte decree dated 25.2.2022. Even the arrival of the bailiff has also been suppressed. All these circumstances clearly indicate the mala fide and ulterior motive on the part of the complainant. The co-accused Manzoor Ahmed who was the father-in-law of the complainant was also nominated as one of the accused but during the investigation it was opined by the Investigating Officer that he was not present there and his bail was confirmed through the impugned order which was not challenged. The case of the petitioner is at par with his co-accused Manzoor Ahmed because the role against both these persons is the same, mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner has also joined the investigation. It will be the trial Court who, after recording of the evidence, will determine the guilt of the petitioner when his sister already has a decree in her favour.
4. Due to the above mentioned reasons, when petitioner remained successful in proving the mala fide on the part of the complainant, this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed. The pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. MWA/A-11/SC Bail confirmed.