Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2000 YLR 211

MUHAMMAD ASIF and others vs THE STATE

Citation2000 YLR 211
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No,6409-B of 1999
Date1999-12-10
Judge(s)Khawaja Muhammad Sharif
ResultBail granted

ORDER

' This is an application for bail before arrest on behalf of Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Rashid.

The allegations against the present petitioners are that they alongwith one Muhammad Nadeem had been making abnoxious calls at the telephone of the complainant. And have been threatening that his daughter namely Hira aged about 9 years would be abducted in case Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) would not be paid in reason.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offence under section 25-D, Telegraph Act, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., that the petitioner is behind the bars since 1-6-1999, that the challan has been submitted in the Court. He further submits that in the initial investigations the petitioners were declared innocent by A.S.-I. And S.H.O., but later on in third investigation conducted by D.S.P., they were found guilty. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are no more required by the police.

3. On the other hand learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that a bare perusal of the F.I.R., discloses offences under section 387/506, P.P.C., which are heinous in nature and that the petitioners are not entitled to grant of bail.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for he parties. In the two earlier investigations the petitioners were found innocent although, in the third investigation conducted by the D.S.P., they have been found guilty. Challan of the case has already been submitted in the Court. Petitioners are behind the bars since 1-6-1999. Offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

If the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant are that the offence under sections 387 and 506, P.P.C., are also made out even then this case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In such-like cases bail is rule and refusal is exception.

Reliance is also placed on PLD 1995 SC 34. Keeping in view the above circumstances, I accept this petition and allow bail to the petitioners in the sum of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.##TE#

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch