2006 P Cr (PLP)
REHMAT alias RAHMANI and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | REHMAT alias RAHMANI and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 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 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (REHMAT alias RAHMANI and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shoaib Khan Buzdr for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.457, 380 & 411
Delay of two days in lodging F.I.R.
Accused, who were involved in the matter on suspicion, had been challaned mainly on the ground that they had made extra-judicial confession before prosecution witnesses
Despite being joint, confessional statement was ditto of F.I.R.
Accused were behind the bars for the last two months and they did not have a previous history of involvement in such-like cases
No likelihood of early commencement of trial in the near future and accused were no more required for the purpose of investigation--Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J.
The petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.21, registered with Police Station Saddar, Layyah on 30-1-2006 for an offence under sections 457/380/411, P.P.C.
2. It is stated in the F.I.R. that in the morning on 28-1-2006 when the complainant opened his grocery shop he found various articles worth Rs.15,000 and cash Rs.5,000 missing. On suspicion petitioners were asked who had confessed their participation in the occurrence and promised to return the stolen articles but did not do so, therefore, necessity arose to get the case registered against them.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. There is a delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R.; that the petitioners who were involved in the matter on suspicion had been challaned mainly on the ground that they had made extra-judicial confession before the P.Ws. A perusal of the same shows that despite being joint confessional statement the same is a ditto copy of F.I.R.; that the petitioners are behind the bars for the last two months and they do not have a previous history of involvement in such-like cases; that there is no likelihood of early commencement of trial in the near future and they are no more required for the purpose of investigation.
5. For what has been stated above, the instant bail application is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./R-29/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.