2004 PLP 1576 (MLD)
KASHIF alias KASHI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1576 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KASHIF alias KASHI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1576 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1576 (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: 2004 PLP 1576 (MLD) (KASHIF alias KASHI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aftab Ahmad Bajwa for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.394/411
Bail, grant of-- Further inquiry
Accused was not nominated in F.I.R. as one of the perpetrators of alleged offences, but his name had surfaced in the case for the first time through a disclosure allegedly made by co-accused before Police after about three months of occurrence
Accused though was correctly picked up in identification parade, but case against accused was at par with, his co-accused who had already been admitted to post-arrest bail
No reason was as to why accused could not be treated in the matter of bail in same manner as said co-accused, when neither State nor complainant had applied before any Court seeking cancellation of bail of said co-accused
Challan had already been submitted after completion of investigation
Continued custody of accused, was not likely to serve any beneficial purpose
Concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment
Case against. accused calling' for further inquiry into his guilt within purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition Kashif alias Kashi petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in the case F.I.R. No.68 registered at Police Station Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura on 13-2-2002 for an offence under section 394, P.P.C. During the investigation section 411, P.P.C. was added to the F.I.R.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for, the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the petitioner had not been nominated in the F.I.R. As one of the perpetrators of the alleged offences. The petitioner's name had surfaced in this case for the first time through a disclosure allegedly made by the petitioner's co-accused, namely Muhammad Amir and Kamran before the police in connwith some other criminal case on 10-5-2002, i.e., after about Mee months of the alleged occurrence. It may be true that the petitioner had statedly correctly been picked up in a test identification parade held in this case and some recovery had also been effected from him during the investigation of this case but at the same time it is equally true that the case against the petitioner is at par with that against his co-accused namely Muhammad Amir and Kamran who have already been admitted to post-arrest bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura vide order dated 2-5-2003. In these circumstances there is no reason why the petitioner may not be treated in the matter of bail in the same manner as the said co-accused. Neither the State nor the complainant has so far applied before any Court seeking cancellation of the bail of the said co-accused of the 'petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the State the petitioner has no credentials or antecedents of a dacoit or a robber as no other case of similar nature stands registered against him at the relevant police station. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. It is trite that the concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 ,(Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.