Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 2234 2015 SLD 2234 2015 YLR 2111
Lahore High Court
Criminal Bail Application No. 931 of 2014, decided on 19th July, 2014. dates of hearing: 9th, 15th and 19th July, 2014.
AMER RAZA NAQVI, J
Amin Shah and Muhammad Akram for Applicants. Saleem Akhtar, Addl. P.G. for
Respondent

Lahore SAJID HUSSAIN alias BARA and 2 others--Applicants

VS

The STATE

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497 & 103---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.395 & 345---Dacoity, keeping any person in wrongful confinement knowing that a writ has been issued for his liberation---Bail, refusal of---Factors to be considered in deciding bail application---Discrepancies in identification parade could be helpful to accused---Previous criminal record might not be considered/ used against accused and every case (bail application) had to be decided on its own merits---Deeper appreciation could not be made at bail stage as such exercise might prejudice the case of any party---Prosecution was able to connect the accused, prima facie, with the alleged offence by means of recoveries and identification of accused---Witness held hostage by accused was a natural witness and had successfully identified the accused---Bail application was dismissed. 1995 SCMR 127; 2013 YLR 208; 2012 PCr.LJ 866; 2012 PCr.LJ 500; 2013 MLD 1225; 2014 MLD 622; 2011 SCMR 161; 2006 YLR 3167; 2012 PCr.LJ 1576 and 2010 YLR 140 ref. ORDER AMER RAZA NAQVI J.---Through this bail application, applicants have sought bail in FIR No. 75/2014 under section 395/345, P.P.C. Police Station Korangi. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the allegation against the present applicants is that they committed dacoity in Tamir Micro Finance Bank, Korangi Branch along with other co-accused persons after taking hostage the guards and employees of the bank. FIR also disclosed snatching mobile phones and arms besides the cash looted. 3. Learned counsel argued that there are two identification parades in the matter, in one identification parade witnesses identified the accused persons, whereas, in the other identification parade witnesses failed to identify, therefore, learned counsel says besides pointing out said discrepancies that identification parade cannot be relied in the present case. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied on 1995 SCMR 127, 2013 YLR 208 and learned counsel says that bail cannot be withheld when there are contradictory identification parades. He also referred 2012 PCr.LJ 866, 2012 PCr.LJ 500, 2013 MLD 1225. Learned counsel further says…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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