2017 PLP 245 (YLRN)
ZAHID ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 245 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) |
| Bench Members | Abdul Sami Khan, J |
| Parties | ZAHID ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 245 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 245 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) bench comprising: Abdul Sami Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 245 (YLRN) (ZAHID ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Bilal Firdous for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.395 & 412
Dacoity, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity
Accused was not named in FIR; he had been involved in the present case by the complainant through supplementary statement after three days of occurrence, which had no value in the eyes of law
No source of information had been disclosed by the complainant, as to how he came to know about the involvement of accused in the case
Whenever accused was not named in the FIR, identification parade was mandatory, but in the present case no identification parade had been conducted
Accused was previous non-convict
Mere registration of cases, without conviction, was no ground to refuse bail if otherwise, accused became entitled to the concession of bail
Evidentiary value of recoveries, would be considered by the Trial Court after recording evidence
Co-accused had been exonerated by the complainant, which fact cast serious doubt qua the prosecution case
Accused was in jail for the last more than seven months
Investigation of the case was complete and accused was no more required for further investigation
Further incarceration of accused in jail would not serve any useful purpose
Case against accused, having become one of further inquiry into his guilt covered under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., accused, was admitted to bail, in circumstances. [Paras. 2 & 3 of the judgment] 1997 SCMR 971 ref. Sh. Istajabat Ali, D.P.-G. for the State and Abid S.I. with record.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.205/15, dated 11.06.2015 registered at Police Station Pindigheb, District Attock in respect of offences under sections 395, 412, P.P.C.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record with their able assistance. It has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner is not named in FIR; he has been involved in the instant case by the complainant through supplementary statement after three days of occurrence which has got no value in the eyes of law. Moreover no source of information has been disclosed by the complainant as to how he came to know about the involvement of petitioner in this case. It is settled law that whenever accused is not named in FIR, identification parade is mandatory, but in this case no identification parade has been conducted. Reliance can be placed upon 1997 SCMR
971. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict. Mere registration of cases without conviction is no ground to refuse bail, if otherwise, accused become entitled to the concession of bail. The evidentiary value of recoveries would be considered by learned trial Court after recording evidence. A co-accused of the petitioner namely Liaqat has been exonerated by the complainant, which fact casts serious doubt qua the prosecution case. The petitioner is in jail for the last more than seven months. Investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation, therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner in jail would not serve any useful purpose.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case against the petitioner become one of further inquiry into their guilt covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. HBT/Z-11/L Bail granted.