Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Sh. Javaid SarfrazCh. Muhammad Zulfiqar Cheema,Muhammad Yousaf Syed,4. Learned counsel
2006 Y L R 14
2006 Y L R 14
[Lahore]
Before Sh. Javaid Sarfraz, J
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2599-B of 2005, decided on 13th October, 2005.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.458 & 411---Bail, grant of-Further inquiry---Accused was not named in F.I.R. and it was only through supplementary statement recorded subsequently that he had been involved in the case---Such fact would entitle accused to grant of bail---No identification parade was conducted---Case of further inquiry was made out by accused---Accused was involved in the case on basis of suspicion and on that account; he could not be kept in jail---Accused was behind the bars for the last six months and it would take long time before his case was finally decided---Keeping accused behind the bars for such a long time would not .serve any useful purpose---No concept of punishment before conviction---Accused, in circumstances was entitled to grant of bail.
Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1997 SCMR 971 and Muhammad Suleman v. Riasat All and another 2002 SCMR 1304 ref.
Ch. Muhammad Zulfiqar Cheema for Petitioner.
Muhammad Yousaf Syed for the State with Atta Ullah, S.I.
ORDER
SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.---The petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, seeks post-arrest bail in case bearing F.I.R. No.222 of 2004, dated 23-11-2004, under sections 458/411, P.P.C., at Police Station Sanawan, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Briefly the facts of this case are that on the eventful night i.e. 22-11-2004 at midnight 8 unknown persons duly armed with deadly weapons entered into the house of the complainant and committed theft of golden ornaments and other household articles.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and it is only in the supplementary statement that his name has appeared; that the allegation against the petitioner is based on suspicion as he is alleged to have been seen on a day earlier near the place of the occurrence; that this itself requires further inquiry to the guilt of the petitioner thus entitling him to grant of bail; that identification parade was not held in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail petition and submits that wrist watch has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner.
5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and it is only through the supplementary statement recorded on 31-11-2004 that he has been involved. The above entitles the petitioner to grant of bail. Ghulam Qadir v. The State (2003 YLR 1858(1)) is referred. No identification parade was conducted. While relying upon Muhammad Rafique v. The State (1997 SCMR 971) and Muhammad Suleman v. Riasat Ali and another (2002 SCMR 1304), case of further inquiry is made out by the present petitioner thus entitling him to grant of bail. The petitioner has been involved in this case on the basis of suspicion and on this account, he cannot be kept in jail. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last six months and it will take long time before his trial is finally decided, therefore, keeping him behind the bars for such a long time would not serve any useful purpose. There is no concept of punishment before conviction. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail.
6. In light of above what has been discussed, while accepting this petition, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-1379/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.