Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Muhammad Farrukh MahmudMian Jamal-ur-Rehman,Muhammad Abdullah Bhatti,Tariq Usman Joiya
2002 Y L R 1203
2002 Y L R 1203
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.410‑B of 2002, decided on 19th March, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.506/387‑‑‑Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art 163‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Date of occurrence was not mentioned in F.I.R:‑‑ No handwriting specimen of accused was taken and letter allegedly written by accused was not sent to Handwriting Expert to ascertain whether same was written by accused or not‑‑‑No case was registered against accused previously‑‑‑Trial Court while dismissing bail application of accused was influenced by oath taken on Holy Qur'an by a person‑‑‑Such‑like proceedings conducted by Trial Court were in clear violation of Art. 163 of Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984 and dictum laid down by Supreme Court‑‑‑None of the offences against accused attracted prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr. P.C. ‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Bashiran Bibi v. Nisar Ahmad and others PLD 1990 SC 83 ref.
Mian Jamal‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioner.
Muhammad Abdullah Bhatti for the Complainant.
Tariq Usman Joiya for the State.
ORDER
Muhammad Rafiq petitioner has sought his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.3 registered at Police Station Shaher Sultan on 4‑1‑2002 for offences under sections 506/387, P.P.C.
2. According to the F.I.R. the complainant received a letter written by the petitioner that complainant should place Rs.1,00,000 on the roof of a telephone both otherwise he would be murdered.
3. After his arrest the investigation against the petitioner has been completed and he is in the judicial lock‑up.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that none of the offences attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that according to the school leaving certificate the petitioner was less then 15 years of age on the date of occurrence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State have vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and have argued that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. and that he had committed a heinous offence which is not an offence against an individual but an offence against the society. It has also been argued that the petitioner had written a such like letter earlier to one Mian Arshad Rasool. It is finally argued that the age of the petitioner, according to the police record is about 24 years and, therefore, he cannot be termed as juvenile.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. It has been noticed that the date of occurrence was not mentioned in the F.I.R. Admittedly, no handwriting specimen of the petitioner was taken nor the letter written by the petitioner was sent to the Handwriting Expert to ascertain whether the same was written by the petitioner or not. It has been admitted by the Police Officer present with record in the Court that no case was registered against the petitioner previously. While dismissing the bail application of the petitioner the learned Additional Sessions Judge was influenced by the oath taken on Holy Qur'an by one Mian Arshad Rasool. Such‑like proceedings conducted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in clear violation of Article 163 of Qanun‑e- Shahadat Order and the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Bashiran Bibi v. Nisar Ahmad and others (PLD 1990 SC 83). None of the offences attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. For what has been discussed above I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑1022/L Bail granted.