MLD 2011

2011 PLP 1553 (MLD)

BAHAR HUSSAIN alias BAHAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
N/A
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2011 PLP 1553 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties BAHAR HUSSAIN alias BAHAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1553 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 1553 (MLD)?

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: 2011 PLP 1553 (MLD) (BAHAR HUSSAIN alias BAHAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Mehr Muhammad Haseeb Qadir for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S.497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392/411

Robbery, dishonestly receiving stolen property

Bail, grant of

Complainant had reported the matter to the police after a delay of 19 days without any plausible explanation

Despite the occurrence having taken place at night, no source of identification of accused had been given in the F.I.R.

Accused and his co-accused had allegedly injured the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, but no medical evidence in this regard was available on record

All the three accused, including the present petitioner, were alleged to have forcibly snatched the Motorcycle etc from the complainant, but the complainant himself had exonerated the two co-accused from the case by filing an affidavit, on the basis of which they had already been released on bail by the Magistrate

Accused was in jail for the last 7-1/2 months and his trial had not yet started

Guilt of accused needed further probe

Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN, J.

Bahar, the petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.173 of/2009 dated 3-7-2009 for the offences under sections 392 and 412' of P.P.C. registered at Police Station Karampur, District Vehari.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co accused Javed Hussain, Shabeer Hussain and one unknown persons on 14-6-2009 at about 9-00 p.m. forcibly snatched the motorcycle, Rs.600/Rs.700, one Mobile Nokia and ID Card of the complainant, after giving him beating.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is delay of about 19-days in lodging of F.I.R.; that according to the allegation in the F.I.R. the complainant and others were injured by the petitioner and other co-accused persons with SOTAS but no medical certificate is available on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that complainant tendered his affidavit before the Magistrate 1st Class, Mailsi wherein he contended that names of co-accused Javed Hussain and Shabir Hussain were got mentioned in the F.I.R. on the basis of misunderstanding and due to suspicion and that now they are not his accused; that the accused persons has satisfied him that they were not involved in this case and on the basis of this affidavit both co-accused Javed Hussain and Shabeer Hussain were admitted to post arrest bail on 6-8-2009. The copy of order and copy of affidavit of the complainant has been placed on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that petitioner was arrested on 7-7-2009 and is behind the bars for about seven and a half months and his person is no more required by the police; and that, recovery of motorcycle has been planted against him. Reliance has been placed on case titled "Tahir Islam v. The State" reported in 2009 PCr.LJ 677.

4. Learned Law Officer has opposed the bail application on the grounds that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.; that recovery of motorcycle has been effected from him; and that, the offence falls within the-prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C, so the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

6. The complainant reported the matter to the police after delay of about 19-days without any plausible explanation. The occurrence took place at night time but no source of identification has been given in the F.I.R. by the complainant and other P.Ws. The allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused is that they injured the complainant and other P.Ws. but this fact has not been established as no medical examination either of the complainant or P.Ws. is available on the record. The allegation against the petitioner and co-accused Javed Hussain and Shabeer Hussain is that they forcibly snatched motorcycle etc. from the complainant and made good their escape but complainant himself tendered affidavit exonerating Javed Hussain and Shabeer Hussain co-accused from this case and on the basis of his affidavit both co-accused Javed Hussain and Shabir Hussain were admitted to post arrest bail by the Magistrate 1st Class, Malsi. The petitioner is behind the bar for last about 7-1/2 months and trial has not yet been started.

7. For what has been discussed above, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry. 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. N.H.Q./B-6/L Bail allowed.