2002 P Cr (PLP)
SHER MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR ALI and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza, CJ |
| Parties | SHER MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR ALI and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 P Cr (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 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza, CJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 P Cr (PLP) (SHER MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR ALI and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nek Nawaz Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 25th May, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.457/380/411‑‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Delay of 35 days in lodging the F.I.R. was not explained‑‑ If the accused were known to the complainant he would have reported the matter at his earliest‑‑‑No recover was effected from the accused‑‑ Accused had not made any confession and he had not been identified in any identification parade‑‑‑Co‑accused in his confession had not mentioned the accused‑‑‑Name of accused was not given even in the site plan‑‑‑No evidence was available against the accused‑‑ Involvement of accused in the crime was yet to be determined through the evidence at the trial and till then he was entitled to bail‑‑‑Bail was allowed to accused accordingly. Muhammad Jamil for the Complainant. Raza Khan Mohmand for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Jamil for the Complainant. Raza Khan Mohmand for the State. Date of hearing: 25th May, 2001. Sher Muhammad son of Daran Khan, alongwith others, is involved in a case under sections 457/380/411, P.P.C. read with section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, vide F.I.R. No.65, dated 25‑1‑2001 of Police Station Labor, Swabi, lodged by the complainant Sardar Ali.
2. The occurrence had taken place on the night between 21st and 22nd December, 2000 when some unknown and unidentified persons had entered the house of complainant Sardar Ali at midnight and had robbed his numerous articles mentioned in the F.I.R. Had he known the culprits, he would have immediately given their names at the most earliest but in the instant case the very F.I.R. was lodged with a delay of thirty‑five days wherein he charged as many as seven persons, namely, Amir Sultan, Sikandar, Nehar, Kishwar, Faiq, Fazl Wahab and the present petitioner Sher Muhammad. The delay is not explained because even if the culprits were not known, he could have reported the matter at the earliest.
3. Neither any recovery is effected front the petitioner nor any confession is made by him nor has he been identified in any parade nor there exists any evidence against him. Contrary thereto, the recoveries have been effected from Fazle Wahab, Amir Sultan, Faiq and Sikandar.
4. Amir Sultan co‑accused had, statedly, made a confession but therein too the petitioner is not mentioned. Even in the site plan the name of the petitioner is not described.
5. In the circumstances, the involvement of the petitioner in the crime remains to be determined through the evidence at trial and till then he is entitled to be released on bail. The application is accepted and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail provided a bond in a sum of Rupees three lacs (Rs.3,00,000) with two local, reliable and resourceful sureties is furnished to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate alone. N.H.Q./436/P Bail allowed.