1995 P Cr (PLP)
NADIR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Hussain, J |
| Parties | NADIR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 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 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (NADIR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Wasim Mumtaz for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.429/436/34
Bail, grant of-- F.I.R. was lodged after an inordinate delay of four days without explaining the same
Neither the complainant nor the witnesses had seen the accused setting the pen on fire
Complainant party even did not try to apprehend the accused if he was present at that time
Case against accused as such needed further inquiry and he was released on bail accordingly. Arshad Naeem for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Wasim Mumtaz for Petitioner. Arshad Naeem for the State. This is an application for bail after arrest on behalf of the petitioner in a case F.I.R. No.7/94, dated 28-1-1994 under sections 429, 436 and 34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Seetpur, District Muzaffargarh.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on the night falling between 24/25-1-1994, the complainant was sleeping in the pen and his cattle were also tethered therein. On the same night at about 3-00 a.m., the complainant saw that the pen was ablaze. He came out and raised cries, which attracted Abdul Hameed and Baggu witnesses. He also saw that his cattle present in the pen were also burnt to ashes.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. without any plausible explanation; that since it was a dark night, the identification of the petitioner was doubtful and that neither the complainant nor the witnesses saw the petitioner setting the pen on fire.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail of the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is evident from the record that the F.I.R. was lodged after four days and no explanation has been furnished for this inordinate delay. Even according to the F.1-R., neither the complainant nor the witnesses saw the petitioner setting the pen on fire. It is also very much surprising that the complainant party did not try to apprehend the petitioner if he was present at that time. As such, the case against the petitioner is of further inquiry. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is allowed to be released on A bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty I thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of ; A.C./Duty Magistrate, Muzaffargarh. N.H.Q./N-300/L Bail allowed.