Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SAEED VS Respondent: THE STATE
1997 P Cr
1997 P Cr. L J 1723
[Lahore]
Before Sajjad Ahmed Sipra, J
MUHAMMAD SAEED---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1572/B of 1997, decided on 23rd April, 1997.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392---Bail, grant of ---F.I.R. had been lodged after a delay of two months without stating the specific date of the alleged occurrence---Recovery of cash effected from the accused after a lapse of more than two months did not connect him with the cash looted---Punishment prescribed for the offence being 3 to 10 years' R.I., law was not to be stretched in favour of prosecution, nor the bail was to be denied as punishment---Accused who was neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal was in judicial custody for over seven months and was no longer required by the police---Case of accused being duly covered under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. required further inquiry and he was allowed bail accordingly.
PLD 1972 SC 81 and PLD 1972 SC 277 ref.
Muhammad Siddique Chughtai for Petitioner.
Mian Abdul Qayyum Anjum for the State.
ORDER
The present petition contends for post-arrest bail of the petitioner in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.399 of 1996, dated 12-9-1996 under section 392, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Okara.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the State were heard at length in respect of the contentions stated herein. The learned counsel for the State opposed the present bail petition and submitted that the petitioner is stated to have been recognized on the spot by the complainant and that cash amounting to Rs.2(X) was recovered from him that duly connects him with the offence alleged. However. it was conceded on behalf of the State that the said cash recovered per se fails to connect the petitioner with the cash looted. It has been further taken notice of that the said recovery had been effected after a lapse of more than two months and that even the F.I.R. had been lodged after a delay of two months, as stated therein, without stating the specific date of the alleged occurrence. It has been further taken notice of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that under the facts and circumstances highlighted, the maximum punishment for the offence alleged under section 392, P.P.C. should not be taken into consideration, which is ten years, as the punishment prescribed is 3 to 10 years R.I. In this respect it is observed that the law is not to be stretched in favour of the prosecution, nor the bail is to be denied as punishment, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in PLD 1972 SC 81 and PLD 1972 SC 277. It was further confirmed on behalf of the State that the E petitioner has been in the judicial custody for over seven months and he is no longer required by the police and that he is neither a previous convict nor hardened criminal. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances highlighted, it is hereby held that the case of the petitioner is duly covered under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Consequently, the petitioner is hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
N.H.Q//M-316/L Bail allowed. .