2010 PLP 2065 (YLR)
SHAFQAT HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 2065 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tariq Shamim, J |
| Parties | SHAFQAT HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 2065 (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 2010 PLP 2065 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tariq Shamim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 2065 (YLR) (SHAFQAT HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nadeem Mumtaz Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
F.I.R. in the case was lodged against unknown assailants by the complainant
Accused was implicated on the basis of a supplementary statement which did not have much evidentiary value
During investigation, no incriminating material was recovered from the possession of accused who was found innocent, as according to the Police, with the exception of supplementary statement, no other direct evidence was available on the record connecting accused with the crime--Investigation of the case had been finalized and accused was not required by the Police for any purpose
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Chaudhry Qaiser Imam for Complainant. Sh. Muhammad Munir, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State along with Muhammad Akbar, S.-I. with record.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.122, dated 18-3-2009 for offences under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Saddar Berooni, District Rawalpindi.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the dead-body of the son of the complainant was recovered from a taxi, as a consequence whereof the aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and was implicated on the basis of a supplementary statement which was of no consequence; that the motive behind the murder was ascribed to co-accused Nadeem as the deceased had illicit relation with his wife; that the petitioner remained on physical remand for ten days but no incriminating material was recovered from his possession and that during investigation he was declared innocent by the police, therefore, his case was one of further inquiry.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the record.
6. In this case the son of the complainant was murdered by some unknown persons and consequently, the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown assailants by the complainant. Subsequently, the petitioner was implicated on the basis of a supplementary statement which does not have much evidentiary value. During investigation no incriminating material was recovered from the possession of the petitioner who was found innocent as, according to the police, with the exception of supplementary statement there is no other direct evidence available on the record connecting the petitioner with the crime. Investigation of the case has been finalized and at this stage, the petitioner is not required by the police for any purpose.
7. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./S-78/L Bail granted.