Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-ZamanSaif-ul-Haq Zai,Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad
2004 M L D 1970 [Lahore] Before Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ---Petitioner Versus THE STATE---Respondent Cr1. Misc. No.1117-B of 2004, decided on 5th March, 2004. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420/467/468/471---Bail, grant of---Earlier accused was on pre-arrest bail, but he having disappeared, his bail was cancelled by Trial Court---Statedly accused was abducted by some Pathans and was taken to uncontrolled area of North-West Frontier Province from, where it was not possible for accused to come back---Accused after procuring his release from said Pathans when came back to territorial jurisdiction of. Court, he was arrested by police---Accused in support of his arguments had produced two copies of applications moved by his father seeking help of police in recovery of accused---Explanation for non-appearance of accused before Trial Court, seemed to be genuine and reasonable---High Court without dilating upon factual aspect of case, admitted accused to bail. Saif-ul-Haq Zai for Petitioner. Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for the State. Date of hearing: 5th March, 2003. ORDER Muhammad Ashfaq petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.386 of 1992, dated 14-7-1992 registered under sections 420/467/468/471, P.P.C. At Police Station North Cantt., Lahore. 2. The petitioner who was on pre-arrest bail in the said case did not appear before the trial Court on 13-12-2001 when his bail was cancelled. After about two years petitioner was again arrested. His application forthe grant of post-arrest bail was dismissed by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore vide order dated 12-1-2004. Hence this petition. 3. Heard. File perused. 4. Admittedly, petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail in the abovesaid case when he disappeared and his bail was cancelled by the trial Court. Statedly, petitioner was abducted by some Pathans and was taken to the uncontrolled area in N.-W.F.P. From where it was not possible for him to come back. Petitioner after procuring his release from the said Pathans when came back to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court he was arrested by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments also produced two copies of the application moved by father of the petitioner seeking help of the police about the recovery of his son. 5. The explanation for the non-appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court as given by the learned counsel seems to be genuine and reasonable and in the circumstances, I am persuaded to entertain this petition. Accordingly, without dilating upon the factual aspect of the case, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (rupees two lacs) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, however, it is made clear that in future if the petitioner absents himself, trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail and to proceed against the sureties. H.B.T./M-620/L Bail granted.