Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 3010 2007 SLD 3010 2007 PLJ 80
Lahore High Court
Crl. Misc. No. 3320-B of 2005, decided on 2.2.2006.
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.
Ch. Saghir Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate for Petitioner. Raja Khurram Sultan, Advocate for State

ABDUL RASHEED

VS

STATE--Respondent

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 380 & 411--Bail, grant of--Further inquiry--No body was identified--No body has sustained injury--Goats alleged to have been stolen, found by complainant produced the same before I.O.--No identification parade was conducted--Case of further inquiry--Bail allowed. Order Petitioner Abdul Rasheed, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 289, dated 8.8.2005, offence under Sections 324, 380 and 411 PPC, registered at Police Station, Gaggo, District, Vehari for the allegations of stealing of two goats, belonging to the complainant, hence, this case. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case by the complainant with malafide intention. The petitioner was arrested after ten days of the alleged occurrence. The alleged goats said to have been stolen by the petitioner were produced by the complainant himself. Further contends that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. The offence is said to have been committed on 1:30 a.m. at night and the F.I.R. was recorded at 3:40 a.m. (night). Neither the petitioner was arrested at the spot nor any identification parade was conducted. The offence under Section 324 PPC is not made out against the petitioner and the other offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Also contends that the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and there is no progress in the trial. Reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused in the crime and in such like cases, when a doubt occurs about the truth or probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, benefit of the same should go to the accused making it a case of further inquiry, hence, petitioner deserves the concession of bail. 3. Conversely, learned State counsel opposed the bail application on the grounds that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence. Challan has been submitted in the Court. The petitioner remained absconder in…
πŸ”’
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