2006 PLP 2656 (YLR)
INAYAT MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2656 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J |
| Parties | INAYAT MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2656 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 2656 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2656 (YLR) (INAYAT MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. M. Farooq for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392
Accused was not named in the F.I.R., but had been involved in the case by the complainant in his supplementary statement recorded after more than three months of the registration of the case
Such involvement of the accused being an afterthought could not be given any weight
Picking of the accused in the identification parade by the complainant held after 20 days of his arrest, was also of no significance
No incriminating recovery was effected from the accused
Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. 2003 PCr.LJ 986; 1997 PCr.LJ 70 and 1978 PCr.LJ 176 ref. Syed Mukhtar Masood Bokhari for the State. Javed Ashraf, S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.9 of 2001 dated 8-1-2001 registered under section 392, P.P.C. with Police Station Muzaffarabad, District Multan.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.; that the alleged occurrence took place on 8-1-2001 and F.I.R. was recorded on 8-1-2001. After 3 months after recording of the F.I.R., the complainant involved Waris Masih, Younas Masih, Javed Masih and Inayat Masih in the case; that petitioner was arrested on 20-4-2004 and after his arrest nothing was recovered from the petitioner; that the identification parade of the petitioner was conducted after 20 days of his arrest which is also not approved by the superior Courts; that challan in the case was submitted on 20-7-2005 and that charge-sheet has been framed against the petitioner. It is contended that a supplementary statement recorded after 20 days of the F.I.R. has no value, as has been laid down in 2003 PCr.LJ 986 and 1997 PCr.LJ
70. Where as in the present case supplementary statement was recorded after a month or so.
3. Further argues that the petitioner was picked out in identification test/parade conducted after 20 days of his arrest, no recovery was effected from him. Such identification test is not approved by the superior Courts. Relying on 1978 PCr.LJ 176 argues that the case of the petitioner is undoubtedly is that of further inquiry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State vehemently opposed the bail application. He submitted that challan has been submitted in the Court on 28-7-2004 but admits that no progress has been made in the same nor charge-sheet has been framed against the petitioner.
5. In view of the arguments of learned counsel for the parties discussed above it admitted that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. recorded on 8-1-2001, whereas, he was nominated by the complainant in supplementary statement recorded on 20-4-2001 in which the petitioner was involved for the first time. This delay of four months nominating the petitioner by the complainant is an afterthought and no weight can be given to the same, when according to law supplementary statement cannot be recorded. As has been held in 1997 PCr.LJ 70 and 2003 PCr.LJ
986. Similarly the identification parade conducted after 20 days of his arrest. Petitioner was picked out by the complainant but no recovery was made from him which is admitted by the prosecution side also. This has also not been approved by this Court in 1978 PCr.LJ 176 and bail was allowed.
6. For what has been discussed above, I accept this petition and admitted the petitioner to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50, 000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. N.H.Q.1I-105/L????????? Bail allowed.