Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Nazir Ahmad SiddiquiArshad Ali Chowhan,Wajid Ali
2002 Y L R 3574
2002 Y L R 3574
[Lahore]
Before Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui. J
MUHAMMAD IQBAL------Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 610‑B of 2002 decided on 20th March, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392/411‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑ Accused was behind the bars for last about 9 months‑‑‑No recovery could be effected from accused despite he remained on physical remand for 14 days with Police‑‑‑Delay of 22 days in lodging F.I.R. was not explained‑‑ Recovery of alleged looted amount was effected from three other persons who had also been involved in such‑like cases previously but accused did not have any reputation of involvement in such type of cases or in any other criminal activity‑‑ Accused earlier had moved an application against complainant for registration of criminal, case against him which was duly entertained‑‑‑Possibility of involvement of accused by complainant by way of counterblast to said application, could not be lightly ignored‑‑‑Case against accused requiring further inquiry he was admitted to bail.
Arshad Ali Chowhan for Petitioner.
Wajid Ali for the State.
Date of hearing: 20th March, 2002.
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.132 of 2001 dated 19‑5‑2001 under sections 392 and 411. P.P.C. at Police Station Chak Baidy District Pak pattan Sharif.
2. As per F.I.R., petitioner is the accused of depriving the complainant of Rs.70,000 with the help of three other persons armed with deadly weapons who had also muffled their faces.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It could not be denied that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 9 months approximately; that despite his being remained on physical remand for 14 days with the police no recovery could be effected from him; that there is a delay of 22 days in lodging F.I.R. without any explanation particularly when, the 'complainant allegedly recognized the petitioner at the time of the occurrence, that the recovery of the alleged looted amount was effected from three other persons namely , Akhtar alias Lakky, Muhammad Ramzan and Eida alias Commando who have also been involved in such‑like cases previously but the petitioner does not have any reputation of involvement in this type of cases any other criminal activity; that the petitioner had earlier moved an application against the complainant before the Incharge Monitoring Cell, Pakpattan Sharif for registration of criminal case on 12‑3‑2001 which was duly entertained vide No.1464/ 12/3 so, the possibility of involving the petitioner by the complainant by way of counterblast to the said application cannot be lightly ignored.
5. All the above uncontroverted submissions taken together into consideration bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry. Resultantly this petition is allowed by admitting the petitioner to post‑arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑1427/L Bail granted.