Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHALID MAHMOOD VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-ZamanSyed Aftab Sherazi,Muhammad Younas Malik and Javed
2006 Y L R 2509
2006 Y L R 2509
[Lahore]
Before Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J
KHALID MAHMOOD---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.9477-B of 2005, decided on 23rd February, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365, 392, 395 & 412---Bail, refusal of---Accused though was not named in F.I.R., but he was involved in the case on basis of supplementary statement of complainant---Said piece of evidence though had no legal sanctity, but accused, after his arrest, was also put to the test of identification parade and he was identified by the witnesses as one of the accused persons---Looted money was also recovered from accused---.Prima facie ample evidence was on record to connect accused with commission of offence falling within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.--Bail petition having no merits, was dismissed.
Syed Aftab Sherazi for Petitioner.
Muhammad Younas Malik and Javed, S.-I. for the State.
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM -UZ-ZAMAN, J.---Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.82 of 2005 dated 9-2-2005 for the offence under sections 356/392/ 395/412, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Ghulam Muhammadabad, on the grounds that complainant of this case has compromised with the petitioner, looted money has already been returned to him and that he is no more interested in the prosecution of this case. It is further submitted that petitioner is behind the bars for the last six months and there is no progress in this trial. Further submits that during the investigation fake recovery was planted upon the petitioner just to strengthen the prosecution case. It is lastly argued that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant which was brought on record after one month of the occurrence. Conversely counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail application.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have observed that though petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but he was involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant. Though this piece of evidence has got no legal sanctity but after his arrest petitioner was also put to the test of identification parade and he was identified by the witnesses as one of the accused persons. During the investigation looted money was also recovered from the petitioner. In this view of the matter, prima facie there is ample evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition having no merits stands dismissed.
H.B.T./K-39/L Bail granted.