1995 PLP 1506 (MLD)
RASHID alias AHMAN- -Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1506 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RASHID alias AHMAN- -Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1506 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1506 (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: 1995 PLP 1506 (MLD) (RASHID alias AHMAN- -Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Nazar Farid Khokhar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860). S.324/365/148/149
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17-- Bail, grant of
F.I.R. was lodged after an unexplained delay of two days
No overt act was specifically attributed to accused
Case against accused, therefore, was 3ne of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was granted bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Rashid alias Ahman was arrested cm the 5th of December, 1994 in pursuance of a first information report bearing No.223/94 registered on the 3rd of November, 1994 at Polio; Station Satghara, District Okara, alleging the commission of offence under section 324/365/148/149, P.P.C. read with section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance NQ.VI of 1979, reporting an occurrence which took place earlier on the '1st of November, 1994 in the area of Mauza Bibipur which is about 12 kilo metres from Police Station Satghara, Tehsil and District Okara.
2. The specific allegation against Rashid petitioner is to the effect that he alongwith the other co-accused snatched a tractor at gun point from the driver of Ch. Ali Ahmad complainant. The said tractor was allegedly recovered on the 14th of November, 1994 from the area of Chak No.24/2-L, Okara.
3. Prima facie section 365, P.P.C. is not made out as far as the petitioner is concerned because there is no allegation kidnapping or abduction. Neither does section 34, P.P.C. seem- to be applicable as far as the petitioner is concerned because th6re is no allegation of an attempt to commit Qatl-i-Amd against the petitioner. As a matter of fact Ahmad Ali who was allegedly injured during the occurrence has had his statement recorded under", section 164,Cr.P.C. and has exonerated the accused persons.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the challan is ready for being submitted in Court and that only petitioner will be made to stand trial because all the co-accused are, absconding. However, learned counsel for the State is not in a position to state as: to when will the trial commence.
5. Admittedly the first information report was lodged after a delay of two days and there is no explanation for the said delay. Besides, no overt act is specifically attributed to the petitioner and, therefore the case against the petitioner is case of further enquiry within the meaning subsection(2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly, the petitioner is granted bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with ,two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate of Okara. N.H.O./R-184/L Bail granted.