| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 605 2017 SLD 605 2017 MLD 238 |
Criminal Misc. (B) No. 104 of 2015, decided on 11th September, 2015.
MUHAMMAD ALAM, JUSTICE
Amjad Hussain for Petitioner. Deputy Advocate General for the State.
MUHBAT JAMAL --Appellant
VS
THE STATE --Respondent
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392---Robbery---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Plea of accused, was, that he had taken the he-goats of the complainant party from his herd of goats as a customary fine; and never with any other intention---Plea taken by accused, needed further consideration---Trial Court, was yet to determine that taking of the he-goats, was as a customary fine or amounted to any offence---Such very fact, was sufficient to hold that the case was one of further inquiry; and accused was entitled to concession of bail---Accused was released on bail, in circumstances. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUHAMMAD ALAM, JUSTICE:---.--- Petitioner who is involved for the offence of section 392, P.P.C., booked through FIR No. 24/15 of Police Station Singul Punial, District Ghizer, seeks his release on bail through this petition. Previously, petitioner moved similar bail petition (B.A. No.42/2015) in the court of Sessions Judge Ghizer, who through his order dated 01-09-2015, did not grant the bail facility to the petitioner. 2. Prosecution story of occurrence is that, on the day of occurrence, petitioner/accused took four he-goats from the herd of goats of the complainant. Petitioner threatened the complainant of dire consequences if the complainant resisted. Police chalked FIR (FIR No.24/15) in the Police Station Singul, arrested petitioner/accused on 09-03-2015, and after completion of investigation, submitted challan for trial of the petitioner. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General and have gone through the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the case against petitioner is false, as from ex-facie perusal of FIR, it is evident that at the time of occurrence, petitioner was alone while the complainant had three other persons with him. So no question of use of force or threat of use of force on the part of petitioner arises. Moreover, counsel for petitioner was of the opinion that the said he-goats were taken from the complainant…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492