CRIMINAL TRIAL & BAIL CASE LAW
Investigation officer is under
obligation to record version of the accused in investigation.
PLJ 2003 Cr.C (Lah) 1168.
Object of investigation is to collect evidence to ascertain the truth or falsehood, innocence or probable guilt of the person suspected of crime.
PLJ 2012 Lah 74.
Duty of investigation officer is not to investigate the matter in such a manner as to connect the accused with offence but to proceed in a way as to bring the truth to surface to save innocent person from agony of endless investigation and trial.
2003 P.Cr.L.J 56
Non-cognizable offences procedure in sec.155 Cr.P.C
2011 YLR 2647, 2011 MLD 847, 2011 P.Cr.L.J 865,
Investigation and cognizance are two different steps.
PLD 2005 Kar 528.
Police have statutory right to investigate in cognizable offence.
2000 P.Cr.L.J 43.
Sec.468 & 471 PPC are non-cognizable but sec.420 PPC is cognizable, so police can investigate without permission of magistrate.
2011 MLD 535.
CIA personnels have no jurisdiction to investigate cognizable fence but only SHO has jurisdiction.
PLD 2000 S.C. 816,PLD 1997 S.C. 408
High Court has no power to interfere in the investigation.
PLD 2003 Kar 209.
Any statement or further statement of the first informant recorded during the investigation by police would neither be equipped with the first information report nor read as a part of the same.
2008 SCMR 1556, 2008 YLR 1838.
According to Art.14 of Constitution,1973, dignity of man and subject to law, privacy of home, shall be inviolable and no person will be subjected to torture for purpose of extracting evidence.
PLJ 2000 Lah.354, PLJ 2010 Cr.C 95,
Police have no authority to take cognizance of an offence even if cognizable and to violate the privacy of a citizen.
1996 P.Cr.L.J 345, PLJ 2000 Lah.354.
Unlike dairies recorded by investigating officer about proceeding in investigation which was a privileged record in view of provisions of sec.172(2) Cr.P.C and statements recorded under s.161 Cr.P.C were unprivileged and a public record.
2011 SCMR 379.
Court in terms of article 15 QSO, can force the I.O to look into the case diaries to answer correctly the questions put to him in cross examination.
PLD 2003 Lah 290.
Police diary is inadmissible in evidence.
1976 SCMR 506
Accused is entitled to supply copies of statements recorded in ziminies and copies of documents placed on file of case.
1986 MLD 1107, PLD 1996 Lah.277, 2005 YLR 933, PLD 2003 Lah 290
Statements U/S.161 Cr.P.C can be in narrative or summarized form.
1995 P.Cr.L.J 1124.
Statements U/S.161 Cr.P.C are not substantive piece of evidence, can be used only for contradiction.
NLR 2004 Crl (Pesh) 168, 1990 P.Cr.L.J 1765, PLD 1996 Lah. 286, AIR 1999 S.C. 2161
Delay in recording statements U/S.161 Cr.P.C, if not explained can have adverse effect.
2008 P.Cr.L.J 881.
Police officer cannot summon a witness just by verbal orders and ask him to be present before him or in police station.
1999 P.Cr.L.J 1549
Statement before police during investigation is inadmissible in evidence.
2001 SCMR 14, 2003 MLD 676, PLJ 2005 Cr.C (Pesh) 7 (DB).
No provision is existed under the law regarding recording of supplementary statement as it amounted to filling in lacunas in the prosecution case.
2007 YLR 1662, 2007 YLR 1576, 2011 MLD 1470, 2008 SCMR 1556.
supplementary statement has no evidentiary value and could not be equated with the FIR.
2007 P.Cr.L.J 1981, 2010 YLR 999, 2011 P.Cr.L.J 357, 2010 YLR 2115, 2010 P.Cr.L.J 1593, 2007 YLR 1576, 2010 MLD 657, 2008 YLR 1891.
supplementary statement can be treated as statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C.
2010 P.Cr.L.J 1460, 2008 YLR 1838, 2008 MLD 1007, 2011 YLR 1250, 2011 YLR 921.
supplementary statement are recorded to fill the lacunas or to add the number of accused.
2007 YLR 1471.
Accused nominated on the basis of supplementary statement- bailed out.
2008 YLR 2776
Statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C can be recorded either at the instance of complainant witness himself or at the instance of accused or I.O. Magistrate cannot refuse to record statement under this section moved through lawyer.
PLJ 2002 Lah.533, 2005 YLR 1403, 2005 MLD 960, 2008 P.Cr.L.J 986.
Purpose of inquest report is only to find out the cause of death of a person and not the person who had caused then death.
PLD 2006 Pesh. 5
It is settled principle of law that in case of conflict between the ocular and medical evidence, then medical evidence is to be preferred. (Bagh Ali Case 1983 SCMR 1292)
Muhammad Aslam Case 1969 SCMR 462, PLD 2006 SC 560, PLD 1988 Kar 521 (DB), 1980 SCMR 637, NLR 2006 Crl. 618 (DB), PLD 1964 SC 633, 1995 P.Cr.L.J 459
Medical evidence can never be used as corroboration qua the accused to show that particular accused had done and caused the injuries.
PLJ 1993 SC 132, 1995 PSC (Crl) SC. Pak 892, 1995 PSC (Crl) SC. Pak 247, 1995 PSC (Crl) SC. Pak 419.
Medical evidence can prove the ffence but not that the appellant has committed the offence.
KLR 1987 Sh.Crt 34.
Investigation after submission of charge-sheet is not barred.
2001 P.Cr.L.J 199, 2002 P.Cr.L.J 2014.
Ex-officio justice of peace can transfer investigation.
2005 MLD 945. View over ruled.
Door of investigation is not completely closed after submission of report U/S.173 Cr.P.C.
PLJ 2012 Lah 74.
No investigation after cancellation of FIR.
1997 P.Cr.L.J 56.
Supplementary challan without permission of the Trial Court was unsustainable in law. Investigation could only be changed as per procedure under Art.18(6) of Police Order, 2002.
2009 YLR 1375
Re-investigation and successive investigations disapproved by Supreme Court as it always creates complications in the way of administration of justice.
2006 SCMR 373.
Opinion of I.O not binding upon the court, Magistrate has powers to agree or disagree with cancellation report.
2011 YLR 2587.
Magistrate disagreeing with discharge report, directing police to submit challan-illegal- can only ask report u/s.173 Cr.P.C incorporating final opinion without any challan.
2001 MLD 1330
Poor investigation would create poor results in an adversarial system and even good laws would become bad when implemented badly.
PLJ 2003 Cr.C Lah. 689, PLJ 2005 Cr.C Lah. 1571.
Process of sniffer dogs even if sponsored by the complainant, must be supervised by the I.O.
PLD 2008 Pesh. 69
Police investigation was completed on the opinion of arbitrators and on the oath taken by the parties on the Holy Quran in the office mosque of the SSP which was against the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
1997 MLD 1598
Law does not enable investigating officer to decide the fate of criminal case on oath or lian.
PLD 1998 Lah. 3
Magistrate upon receiving complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offence committed in his area, is empowered to order investigation of the case. Such an order may include direction to register a case and investigate the same in accordance with law.
PLD 1999 Lah. 417
Investigation is the legal duty of police or other authorized agencies which cannot be delegated to any private person or body.
2004 YLR 500
PLJ 2003 Cr.C (Lah) 1168.
Object of investigation is to collect evidence to ascertain the truth or falsehood, innocence or probable guilt of the person suspected of crime.
PLJ 2012 Lah 74.
Duty of investigation officer is not to investigate the matter in such a manner as to connect the accused with offence but to proceed in a way as to bring the truth to surface to save innocent person from agony of endless investigation and trial.
2003 P.Cr.L.J 56
Non-cognizable offences procedure in sec.155 Cr.P.C
2011 YLR 2647, 2011 MLD 847, 2011 P.Cr.L.J 865,
Investigation and cognizance are two different steps.
PLD 2005 Kar 528.
Police have statutory right to investigate in cognizable offence.
2000 P.Cr.L.J 43.
Sec.468 & 471 PPC are non-cognizable but sec.420 PPC is cognizable, so police can investigate without permission of magistrate.
2011 MLD 535.
CIA personnels have no jurisdiction to investigate cognizable fence but only SHO has jurisdiction.
PLD 2000 S.C. 816,PLD 1997 S.C. 408
High Court has no power to interfere in the investigation.
PLD 2003 Kar 209.
Any statement or further statement of the first informant recorded during the investigation by police would neither be equipped with the first information report nor read as a part of the same.
2008 SCMR 1556, 2008 YLR 1838.
According to Art.14 of Constitution,1973, dignity of man and subject to law, privacy of home, shall be inviolable and no person will be subjected to torture for purpose of extracting evidence.
PLJ 2000 Lah.354, PLJ 2010 Cr.C 95,
Police have no authority to take cognizance of an offence even if cognizable and to violate the privacy of a citizen.
1996 P.Cr.L.J 345, PLJ 2000 Lah.354.
Unlike dairies recorded by investigating officer about proceeding in investigation which was a privileged record in view of provisions of sec.172(2) Cr.P.C and statements recorded under s.161 Cr.P.C were unprivileged and a public record.
2011 SCMR 379.
Court in terms of article 15 QSO, can force the I.O to look into the case diaries to answer correctly the questions put to him in cross examination.
PLD 2003 Lah 290.
Police diary is inadmissible in evidence.
1976 SCMR 506
Accused is entitled to supply copies of statements recorded in ziminies and copies of documents placed on file of case.
1986 MLD 1107, PLD 1996 Lah.277, 2005 YLR 933, PLD 2003 Lah 290
Statements U/S.161 Cr.P.C can be in narrative or summarized form.
1995 P.Cr.L.J 1124.
Statements U/S.161 Cr.P.C are not substantive piece of evidence, can be used only for contradiction.
NLR 2004 Crl (Pesh) 168, 1990 P.Cr.L.J 1765, PLD 1996 Lah. 286, AIR 1999 S.C. 2161
Delay in recording statements U/S.161 Cr.P.C, if not explained can have adverse effect.
2008 P.Cr.L.J 881.
Police officer cannot summon a witness just by verbal orders and ask him to be present before him or in police station.
1999 P.Cr.L.J 1549
Statement before police during investigation is inadmissible in evidence.
2001 SCMR 14, 2003 MLD 676, PLJ 2005 Cr.C (Pesh) 7 (DB).
No provision is existed under the law regarding recording of supplementary statement as it amounted to filling in lacunas in the prosecution case.
2007 YLR 1662, 2007 YLR 1576, 2011 MLD 1470, 2008 SCMR 1556.
supplementary statement has no evidentiary value and could not be equated with the FIR.
2007 P.Cr.L.J 1981, 2010 YLR 999, 2011 P.Cr.L.J 357, 2010 YLR 2115, 2010 P.Cr.L.J 1593, 2007 YLR 1576, 2010 MLD 657, 2008 YLR 1891.
supplementary statement can be treated as statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C.
2010 P.Cr.L.J 1460, 2008 YLR 1838, 2008 MLD 1007, 2011 YLR 1250, 2011 YLR 921.
supplementary statement are recorded to fill the lacunas or to add the number of accused.
2007 YLR 1471.
Accused nominated on the basis of supplementary statement- bailed out.
2008 YLR 2776
Statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C can be recorded either at the instance of complainant witness himself or at the instance of accused or I.O. Magistrate cannot refuse to record statement under this section moved through lawyer.
PLJ 2002 Lah.533, 2005 YLR 1403, 2005 MLD 960, 2008 P.Cr.L.J 986.
Purpose of inquest report is only to find out the cause of death of a person and not the person who had caused then death.
PLD 2006 Pesh. 5
It is settled principle of law that in case of conflict between the ocular and medical evidence, then medical evidence is to be preferred. (Bagh Ali Case 1983 SCMR 1292)
Muhammad Aslam Case 1969 SCMR 462, PLD 2006 SC 560, PLD 1988 Kar 521 (DB), 1980 SCMR 637, NLR 2006 Crl. 618 (DB), PLD 1964 SC 633, 1995 P.Cr.L.J 459
Medical evidence can never be used as corroboration qua the accused to show that particular accused had done and caused the injuries.
PLJ 1993 SC 132, 1995 PSC (Crl) SC. Pak 892, 1995 PSC (Crl) SC. Pak 247, 1995 PSC (Crl) SC. Pak 419.
Medical evidence can prove the ffence but not that the appellant has committed the offence.
KLR 1987 Sh.Crt 34.
Investigation after submission of charge-sheet is not barred.
2001 P.Cr.L.J 199, 2002 P.Cr.L.J 2014.
Ex-officio justice of peace can transfer investigation.
2005 MLD 945. View over ruled.
Door of investigation is not completely closed after submission of report U/S.173 Cr.P.C.
PLJ 2012 Lah 74.
No investigation after cancellation of FIR.
1997 P.Cr.L.J 56.
Supplementary challan without permission of the Trial Court was unsustainable in law. Investigation could only be changed as per procedure under Art.18(6) of Police Order, 2002.
2009 YLR 1375
Re-investigation and successive investigations disapproved by Supreme Court as it always creates complications in the way of administration of justice.
2006 SCMR 373.
Opinion of I.O not binding upon the court, Magistrate has powers to agree or disagree with cancellation report.
2011 YLR 2587.
Magistrate disagreeing with discharge report, directing police to submit challan-illegal- can only ask report u/s.173 Cr.P.C incorporating final opinion without any challan.
2001 MLD 1330
Poor investigation would create poor results in an adversarial system and even good laws would become bad when implemented badly.
PLJ 2003 Cr.C Lah. 689, PLJ 2005 Cr.C Lah. 1571.
Process of sniffer dogs even if sponsored by the complainant, must be supervised by the I.O.
PLD 2008 Pesh. 69
Police investigation was completed on the opinion of arbitrators and on the oath taken by the parties on the Holy Quran in the office mosque of the SSP which was against the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
1997 MLD 1598
Law does not enable investigating officer to decide the fate of criminal case on oath or lian.
PLD 1998 Lah. 3
Magistrate upon receiving complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offence committed in his area, is empowered to order investigation of the case. Such an order may include direction to register a case and investigate the same in accordance with law.
PLD 1999 Lah. 417
Investigation is the legal duty of police or other authorized agencies which cannot be delegated to any private person or body.
2004 YLR 500
2008 SCMR 1572 It is well settled
that for the purpose of giving benefit of doubt to an accused person more than
one infirmity is not required, only a single infirmity creating reasonable
doubt in the mind of reasonable and prudent mind regarding the truth of the
charge makes the whole case doubtful merely burden on the accused to prove his
innocence does not absolve the prosecution from its duty to prove its case
against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt.
Reliance can also be placed upon 2004 P.Cr.L.J 886 where it is held that for giving accused benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there was a circumstances which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused, then accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right.
Reference can be made to the case of 1999 P.Cr.L.J 1107 (Mukhtar Ahmed), the sections 406, 420 PPC do not figure in the table mentioned under section 345, Cr.P.C and are not compoundable. However, the fact that the parties have themselves voluntarily forgotten and forgiven a certain crime and have entered into an outside court settlement and the complainant party is no longer willing to prosecute a matter any further then it is not for the court to compel the parties to do so, as the saying goes, you can take the horse till the water but you cannot make him drink.
For initiation of criminal proceedings no time limit has been given in the criminal jurisprudence. In this connection reliance may be placed upon 2007 SCMR 437 wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that delay in registration of the FIR is neither proof of truth nor of falsehood.
The case in hand does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, therefore, the petitioner deserves for concession of bail as a matter of right. In response to this argument, I am guided by 2009 SCMR 174 and 2002 SCMR 442 wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that bail in cases not falling in the prohibitory clause, is not a rule of universal application. Even otherwise, each and every criminal case is to be adjudged on its own facts and particular circumstances. Reliance may be placed upon Noora’s case PLD 1973 S.C 469.
S.200 Private complaint; issuance of process. 2010 YLR 2226, 1049.
145,107,151 Dispute regarding land- attachment set aside. 2010 YLR 948
Tube well 2010 YLR 812
156,173 Re-investigation of case. 2010 YLR 3142, 944, 3201
169,170,173 Cancellation of FIR Powers of I.O & Magistrate. 2010 YLR 1580, 3288
Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of an offence, cannot concur with the police report and cannot cancel such an FIR.
176 Judicial inquiry into the cause of death. 2010 YLR 2536.
190,173 Final report, scrutiny by Magistrate- extent & scope 2010 YLR 1357.
249-A,516-A, 379/411 Superdari of stolen property after acquittal refused to accused. 2010 YLR 3282
342 Examination of accused- Object & purpose. 2010 YLR 914
417 Appeal against acquittal always carries double presumption of innocence in favour of accused. 2010 YLR 2796, 1083, 2097, 2216, 275, 2653, 112
S.423 Remand of Criminal case- Criterion
1. Irregularity has prejudiced the accused.
2. Said irregularity or illegality has been raised at earliest stage. 2010 YLR 393, 2157
S.426 Suspension of sentence –Hurt
1. Less than three years
2. More than three but less than seven
3. More than seven upto life. 2010 YLR 1178, 1396
S.439 Revisional Jurisdiction- Revisional jurisdiction has to be exercised to further cause of justice- Revisional court is not a toothless paper tiger and it can always exercise its powers to correct manifest illegality or to prevent gross miscarriage of justice. It should not be used to throttle any litigation. 2010 YLR 1580
S.491 & S.100 Habeas Corpus petition puber detenue at liberty to go where she desires. 2010 YLR 1729
S.497 Bail principles
Court has to carve a balance and tread a path of moderation, justice must be done to both the parties, while it is justice to provide the relief to a wronged one, it is equally a justice to punish a wrong doer, mere fact that by arrest a person would be humiliated would be no ground for grant of bail, bail must be granted, refused or cancelled on the basis of merits of the case. 2010 YLR 1275
S.497 Mistaken relief of bail granted to an accused be repaired by his ultimate conviction and incarceration, but the wrong of unjustified incarceration of an innocent person cannot be satisfactorily rectified, even if he is acquitted. 2010 YLR 2707
S.377 opinion of police is not binding on court, but it is relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration while determining the question of bail. 2010 YLR 1048, 2010 PCrLJ 564
S.380,457 nominated, nothing recovered, no direct evidence, two co-accused earlier released by trial court-admitted. 2010 YLR 1381
S.380/411 merely denying bail to an accused on the fact that he had been involved in many criminal cases and was a history sheeter, would not be justified for the reason that until and unless accused was convicted by the court of law, relief should not be denied to him. 2010 YLR 796
S.392/34 The accused was involved in innumerable cases pertaining to the street crimes, he could not be set free on account of his involvement in number of FIRs lodged at different police stations, concession of bail could not be frequently extended on account of repetition of crimes by accused. Refused 2010 YLR 2164
S.392/34 ne enmity has been attributed by accused against the police or the complainant- contention as regard as non-compliance of the provision of S.103 Cr.P.C could not hold good, because the recovery was not effected from a building but was effected from accused on the road side. Evidence of police could not be discarded until and unless it was found that they had given evidence due to some mala fide- street crimes are rising day by day and people like accused for a very petty amount took lives of innocent persons upon resistance and such type of accused had to be dealt with iron hands by the police as well as by the courts so that in future they would not dare to commit such type of offence- bail refused. 2010 YLR 464
S.392,397,34 Six days delay, supplementary statements, no arms or ammunition recovered, no identification parade- Bail granted 2010 YLR 1951
420,486,471 The accused being beneficiary of forged document would be presumed to have prepared that same- Neither original document nor any evidence was available on record to show that accused had prepared said document, offences 420 & 471 are bailable and S.468 PPc does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause- Bail granted. 2010 YLR 2064
Offences charged with were committed in a very desperate and dreadful manner, accused could not be allowed bail simply on the ground that none of the offences allegedly committed by them, fell within prohibitory clause- cases of accused falling outside the prohibitory clause normally though could not be declined bail, but accused could not claim bail on the said ground as a matter of right, rather the bail could be refused even in such like category of cases- crime weapons were recovered from the possession of accused persons- tentatively speaking, the prosecution was equipped with sufficient incriminating material against accused persons which demonstrated their high-handedness- such like desperadoes could not be let loose in the society- Previous record of accused persons being far from bright was very pathetic, shocking and alarming- one of the accused persons had a long list of 13 criminal cases against him. Registration of numerous criminal cases against accused persons had shown that they were not men of clean slate in case of bail- Chances of repetition of the crime and jumping the bail by accused persons could not be ruled out. 2010 YLR 1231
S,489-F Mere issuance and dishonour of cheque in the absence of other essential ingredients such as repayment of loanor discharge of any lawful obligation, did not constitute offence U/S.489-F. 2010 YLR 2021
3,4 PEHO accused manufacturing liquor in house, 20 litres recovered, Place of occurrence not being a public place, police could not conduct raid without prior permission of magistrate. Offence U/article.3 was punishable with maximum five years R.I whereas article 4 is bailable. Grant of bail in such like cases is rule and its refusal is exception. 2010 YLR 2681,1101
S.3,4 PEHO Forensic Science laboratory report was not available on the file to show that what was recovered, was in fact liquor/intoxicant- Bail granted. 2010 YLR 2024
Benefit of every doubt, even at bail stage, is to be given to accused. 2010 YLR 1048
S.376,377,511 Attempt to commit rape and sodomy- Accused prima facie was less than 16 years at time when alleged offence was committed, 4 months behind the bars, punishment for attempt was half, S.10(7)(c) JJSO,2000, child was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, if he had been behind the bars for more than four months, except in cases punishable with death or imprisonment for life, would be entitled to bail. 2010 YLR 1960
S.9(c) CNSA Car given on superdari subject to deposit of cash Rs.7,00000 with the nazir of the court within 30 days. The nazir is further directed to deposit the said amount in some government Profitable Scheme and no profit shall be encashed by either party till the decision of the court. 2010 YLR 254
S.514 Forfeiture of bonds- In matters of sureties no lenient view should be taken and the entire amount of the bail bond should be recovered as an amount of penalty and reduction of penalty to the tune of 1/5th or 1/10th was simply ridiculous and encouraged the people to go into abscondance. 2010 YLR 2930 (contra 466, 1946 reduced)
S.516-A Charge of selling substandard and injurious to health cold drinks- No objection certificate issued by the policedid not provide a basis to the area majistrateto pass an order of superdari. He should have declined the request for superdaari of accused on the basis of material i.e. FIR, recovery memo etc It is painful to note that the area magistrate in fact mortgaged his functions and duties to the police. 2010 YLR 14* rel (PLD 1979 Kar 430, Lah 613)
S.540 Application for recalling and re-examination of witness already examined and cross-examined- dismissed 2010 YLR 1157
The punishment provided for the offence is three years which does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause, accused no more required for the purpose of further investigation to police, the rule in such like cases is bail not the jail. Following the rule laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in PlLD 1995 Sc 34, I allow the application.
S.419,420,468,471 result card advocate. Such persons could not be let loose on the society to repeat the offence, offence charged against accused, no doubt, did not fall within prohibitory clause, where grant of bail was a rule and refusal an exception, but case of accused in view of above circumstances was an exceptional caseand an exception could be used against him, Rejected. 2010 PCrLJ 419
Grant of bail in cases not falling within the domain of prohibition clause of proviso to section 497 Cr.P.C is not a rule of universal application. Each case has to be seen through its own facts and circumstances. Grant of bail no doubt, is a discretion granted to a court, but its exercise cannot be arbitrarily, fanciful or perverse. 2009 SCMR 174, 2009 PCrLJ 1140.
Court may decline bail to accused in offences not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C, if there exist recognized exceptional circumstances. 2001 PCrLJ 291
Shaky evidence of the prosecution has been discussed. For the safe administration of justice, it is not the quantity but the quality of evidence produced before the court to considered for reaching a correct conclusion and just decision of the case. 2010 PCrLJ 458
The facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record suggests that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and while extending him the benefit of the doubt, he deserves acquittal.
Law for the purpose of bail is not to be stretched in favour of prosecution, benefit of doubt if any, arising in the case must go to the accused at bail stage. I am fortified by PLD 1972 SC 277, 2010 PCrLJ 572.
Through an amendment S.489-F had been inserted and dishonestly issuing a cheque for the purpose of discharging an obligation which cheque is dishonouredhas clearly been made a crime and , thus, the petitionermay not be allowedto take shelter behind a civil statute to avoid his criminal liability. 2010 PCrLJ 590
When the law itself has made a particular action criminally culpable then an attempt to thwart the intention of such law with reference to a civil statute may not be acceptable. 2010 PCrLJ 590
Any statement or further statement of the first informant recorded by investigation officer during investigation would neither be equated with the FIR nor red as a part of the same. 2010 PCRLJ 1593
Commencement of trial in the case is not ground for refusal of bail, if case of accused otherwise requires further inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.p.C. 2010 PCRLJ 1926, 2007 SCMR 1178,PLD 1989 SC 585
It is well settled principle of law that statement of one co-accused cannot be used against the other co-accused. 2010 PCRLJ 1744
Holy Quran in very clear terms in Surah Bani Israeel declares and upholds the principles of human dignity. According to this Islamic injunction every person born in this world without reference to colour, caste and creed is clothed with dignity; it is free gift from Allah Almighty and no human being has the authority to tear as under the cloak of honour conferred by the Lord Creator.
Mere assault of women was not sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of S.454 PPC, but there were other circumstances to show that accused had the requisite knowledge or intention. Prosecution story was also not appealing because it would be a rear case when a father in the company of his two sons would try to outrage the modesty of a woman. No unimpeachable and independent evidence was available to support the prosecution version. FIR was lodged with an unexplained and inordinate delay of about five hours. 2010 PCrLJ 1806.
Name of the accused did not figure out in the FIR, but he was later on implicated in the FIR through supplementary statement recorded after registration of FIR which was belated. False implication of accused could not be ruled out. Alleged abductee had reached her home, keeping accused behind the bars as punishment would not fulfill any useful purpose. 2010 PCrLJ 1782
If one accused, for whatever reasons, bona fide or mala fide, is not proceeded against, other accused cannot claim that he should be allowed to go scot-free. 2010 PCRLJ 1832
It is well settled principle of law that mere relationship is no ground for discarding the evidence of the prosecution witness, unless and until his enmity is established with the accused person. 2010 PCRLJ 1787. PLD 2007 SC(AJ&K) 102
Mere relationship per se is not sufficient to throw out the case of prosecution. In the same way on the basis of strained relations between the complainant and accused party, the prosecution case cannot be held concocted and fabricated. 2007 PCrLJ 246
Order of Magistrate for the constitution of medical board is not judicial order but an administrative order. No revision lies against that order. The innocent request of the petitioner was allowed to re-examine injuries. 2010 PCrLJ 1799
The law is that every criminal proceeding(and in fact every civil proceeding) is to be decided on the material on record of that proceeding and neither the record of another case nor ant finding recorded therein should affect the decision. If the court takes into consideration evidence recoded in another case of a finding recorded therein the judgment is vitiated. PLD 1967 SC 708, 1996 PCrLJ 514
It does not mean that corroboration should be from an independent witness, but anything in the circumstances satisfying the court that each interested witness has spoken truth sufficient for corroboration. It is not necessary that the corroborative evidence should also be of same probative force. 2010 PCrLJ 1787, PLD 2007 SC(AJ&K) 102
The Hon’ble apex court held that where the witnesses made improvements in order to bring in accord ocular testimony with the medical evidence causes serious doubts on veracity of their testimony, their evidence is of a doubtful character and the possibilities were that this was an unwitnessed crime. 2010 PCrLJ 1842, 1984 SCMR 42
Mere abscondence is not a proof of guilt of any accused person. Abscondence may be a relevant fact but the same cannot be used for entailing conviction on capital charge alone when the ocular account is not trustworthy and does not get any corroboration from any other source. 1974 PCrLJ 208, 2005 PCrLJ 1667, 2006 SCMR 1707, 2010 PCrLJ 1842,
When there be two possibilities open upon the evidence of the prosecution, the possibility which goes in favour of the accused should be accepted. 2004 SCR 36, PLD 1995 SC 1, 1971 SCMR 357,1994 SCR 275
Taking of victim from path to a nearby Wahn would not constitute kidnapping. PLD 1994 FSC 23
It is well settles proposition in criminal administration of justice that each criminal case is to be adjudged in the background of its own facts and circumstances, as the facts of two criminal cases seldom coincide. 2010 PCrLJ 1866
Accused though not nominated in the FIR, but material collected during investigation was sufficient to hold involvement of accused in the commission of offence.
Facts and circumstances of the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are quite different to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
It is well settled principle of criminal administration of justice that when an accused is acquitted of the charge, he enjoys double presumption of innocence in his favour.
2004 SCMR 1185, 2010 PCrLJ 1871
The golden principle of law is that a chain of culprits may be let free to prevent punishment to an innocent person; a single circumstance creating doubt as to the guilt, is sufficient to acquit the accused from the charge of the case; and a single reason arising out of one’s evidence, is sufficient to discard his entire evidence. 2010 PCrLJ 1877
When the statement of witness was not challenged in the cross-examination, it would be legally proved to have been accepted by the opposite side. 2001 SCMR 1700
The constitutional guarantee is confined only to duplicate punishment and is silent in so far as acquittal is concerned. Section 403(1) Cr.P.C., however prohibits the second trial for an offence during the course of existence of conviction or acquittal of a person, as the case may be, in consequence of final adjudication of such an offence by a court of competent jurisdiction. Thus the rule against “ autrefois acquit” finds place in section 403(1)Cr.P.C. and the counterpart of this rule “autrefois convict” has received recognition in the constitutional guarantee embodied in Article 13(a). 1995 SCMR 626, 2010 PCrLJ 1980
The evidence should be of such a degree and character that it should exclude the possibility of innocence of an accused. Besides, it should together all the chains of prosecution story so as to convince the court to reach an irresistible conclusion that the accused person was the culprit beyond any reasonable doubt. 1992 SCR 366, 2010 PCrLJ 1567
Finding of guilt against the accused person cannot be based merely on the high probabilities. If a case were to be decided merely on high probability regarding the existence or non-existence of a fact to pr0ve the guilt of a person, the golden rule of “benefit of doubt” to an accused person, which has been a dominant feature of the administration of criminal justice in this country, will be reduced to naught. PLD 1970 SC 10, 2010 PCrLJ 1593
S.497 CrPC Principles regarding grant and refusal of bail.
(PLD 2009 PESH 28) PLD 1988 SC 413, PLD 1995 SC 500, PLD 1978 SC 256
S.376/511 broken string, shalwar and shirt recovered, no medical,Further inquiry-bail granted 2009 MLD 19, 2007 PCRLJ 1149,
S.337-A(ii) 2009 MLD 21,
S.392/34 further inquiry, bail granted. 2009 MLD 30
S.201 bailable. 2009 MLD 37
S.324/34 further inquiry. 2009 MLD 88/141
S.11 zine accused in jail more than 2 and half years with no progress of case- bailed. 2009 MLD 103
S.337-A(i)(ii),F(i),L(ii) bailed. 2009 MLD 127, Pld 1995 sc 34.
S.324/353/337-A(i) snatching of mobile, bail declined. 2009 MLD 159, 2002 MLD 1474
s.324/34/337-l(ii),F(ii) bailed. 2009 MLD 348, 2004 ylr 94/13, 2004 pcrlj 1862
S.302/364 dead body of deceased had not been recovered, no direct or last scene evidence- bailed. 2009 Mld 184, 2003 SCMR 1419, 2001 Scmr 14, 2008 Pcrlj 129, 2007 Ylr 1576, 2004 Pcrlj 143, 2007 Pcrlj 1064, 2007 Mld 1460, 2007 pcrlj 1579, 1996 Scmr 1485, 1990 Pcrlj 1541, 2008 Ylr 1134, Pld 1997 sc 545, 2005 Pcrlj 43, 1995 Scmr 1765
s.120-B/121 inciting and indulging in preparation of minor girls for suicidal attacks- bailed. 2009 Mld 242,
Reliance can also be placed upon 2004 P.Cr.L.J 886 where it is held that for giving accused benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there was a circumstances which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused, then accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right.
Reference can be made to the case of 1999 P.Cr.L.J 1107 (Mukhtar Ahmed), the sections 406, 420 PPC do not figure in the table mentioned under section 345, Cr.P.C and are not compoundable. However, the fact that the parties have themselves voluntarily forgotten and forgiven a certain crime and have entered into an outside court settlement and the complainant party is no longer willing to prosecute a matter any further then it is not for the court to compel the parties to do so, as the saying goes, you can take the horse till the water but you cannot make him drink.
For initiation of criminal proceedings no time limit has been given in the criminal jurisprudence. In this connection reliance may be placed upon 2007 SCMR 437 wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that delay in registration of the FIR is neither proof of truth nor of falsehood.
The case in hand does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, therefore, the petitioner deserves for concession of bail as a matter of right. In response to this argument, I am guided by 2009 SCMR 174 and 2002 SCMR 442 wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that bail in cases not falling in the prohibitory clause, is not a rule of universal application. Even otherwise, each and every criminal case is to be adjudged on its own facts and particular circumstances. Reliance may be placed upon Noora’s case PLD 1973 S.C 469.
S.200 Private complaint; issuance of process. 2010 YLR 2226, 1049.
145,107,151 Dispute regarding land- attachment set aside. 2010 YLR 948
Tube well 2010 YLR 812
156,173 Re-investigation of case. 2010 YLR 3142, 944, 3201
169,170,173 Cancellation of FIR Powers of I.O & Magistrate. 2010 YLR 1580, 3288
Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of an offence, cannot concur with the police report and cannot cancel such an FIR.
176 Judicial inquiry into the cause of death. 2010 YLR 2536.
190,173 Final report, scrutiny by Magistrate- extent & scope 2010 YLR 1357.
249-A,516-A, 379/411 Superdari of stolen property after acquittal refused to accused. 2010 YLR 3282
342 Examination of accused- Object & purpose. 2010 YLR 914
417 Appeal against acquittal always carries double presumption of innocence in favour of accused. 2010 YLR 2796, 1083, 2097, 2216, 275, 2653, 112
S.423 Remand of Criminal case- Criterion
1. Irregularity has prejudiced the accused.
2. Said irregularity or illegality has been raised at earliest stage. 2010 YLR 393, 2157
S.426 Suspension of sentence –Hurt
1. Less than three years
2. More than three but less than seven
3. More than seven upto life. 2010 YLR 1178, 1396
S.439 Revisional Jurisdiction- Revisional jurisdiction has to be exercised to further cause of justice- Revisional court is not a toothless paper tiger and it can always exercise its powers to correct manifest illegality or to prevent gross miscarriage of justice. It should not be used to throttle any litigation. 2010 YLR 1580
S.491 & S.100 Habeas Corpus petition puber detenue at liberty to go where she desires. 2010 YLR 1729
S.497 Bail principles
Court has to carve a balance and tread a path of moderation, justice must be done to both the parties, while it is justice to provide the relief to a wronged one, it is equally a justice to punish a wrong doer, mere fact that by arrest a person would be humiliated would be no ground for grant of bail, bail must be granted, refused or cancelled on the basis of merits of the case. 2010 YLR 1275
S.497 Mistaken relief of bail granted to an accused be repaired by his ultimate conviction and incarceration, but the wrong of unjustified incarceration of an innocent person cannot be satisfactorily rectified, even if he is acquitted. 2010 YLR 2707
S.377 opinion of police is not binding on court, but it is relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration while determining the question of bail. 2010 YLR 1048, 2010 PCrLJ 564
S.380,457 nominated, nothing recovered, no direct evidence, two co-accused earlier released by trial court-admitted. 2010 YLR 1381
S.380/411 merely denying bail to an accused on the fact that he had been involved in many criminal cases and was a history sheeter, would not be justified for the reason that until and unless accused was convicted by the court of law, relief should not be denied to him. 2010 YLR 796
S.392/34 The accused was involved in innumerable cases pertaining to the street crimes, he could not be set free on account of his involvement in number of FIRs lodged at different police stations, concession of bail could not be frequently extended on account of repetition of crimes by accused. Refused 2010 YLR 2164
S.392/34 ne enmity has been attributed by accused against the police or the complainant- contention as regard as non-compliance of the provision of S.103 Cr.P.C could not hold good, because the recovery was not effected from a building but was effected from accused on the road side. Evidence of police could not be discarded until and unless it was found that they had given evidence due to some mala fide- street crimes are rising day by day and people like accused for a very petty amount took lives of innocent persons upon resistance and such type of accused had to be dealt with iron hands by the police as well as by the courts so that in future they would not dare to commit such type of offence- bail refused. 2010 YLR 464
S.392,397,34 Six days delay, supplementary statements, no arms or ammunition recovered, no identification parade- Bail granted 2010 YLR 1951
420,486,471 The accused being beneficiary of forged document would be presumed to have prepared that same- Neither original document nor any evidence was available on record to show that accused had prepared said document, offences 420 & 471 are bailable and S.468 PPc does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause- Bail granted. 2010 YLR 2064
Offences charged with were committed in a very desperate and dreadful manner, accused could not be allowed bail simply on the ground that none of the offences allegedly committed by them, fell within prohibitory clause- cases of accused falling outside the prohibitory clause normally though could not be declined bail, but accused could not claim bail on the said ground as a matter of right, rather the bail could be refused even in such like category of cases- crime weapons were recovered from the possession of accused persons- tentatively speaking, the prosecution was equipped with sufficient incriminating material against accused persons which demonstrated their high-handedness- such like desperadoes could not be let loose in the society- Previous record of accused persons being far from bright was very pathetic, shocking and alarming- one of the accused persons had a long list of 13 criminal cases against him. Registration of numerous criminal cases against accused persons had shown that they were not men of clean slate in case of bail- Chances of repetition of the crime and jumping the bail by accused persons could not be ruled out. 2010 YLR 1231
S,489-F Mere issuance and dishonour of cheque in the absence of other essential ingredients such as repayment of loanor discharge of any lawful obligation, did not constitute offence U/S.489-F. 2010 YLR 2021
3,4 PEHO accused manufacturing liquor in house, 20 litres recovered, Place of occurrence not being a public place, police could not conduct raid without prior permission of magistrate. Offence U/article.3 was punishable with maximum five years R.I whereas article 4 is bailable. Grant of bail in such like cases is rule and its refusal is exception. 2010 YLR 2681,1101
S.3,4 PEHO Forensic Science laboratory report was not available on the file to show that what was recovered, was in fact liquor/intoxicant- Bail granted. 2010 YLR 2024
Benefit of every doubt, even at bail stage, is to be given to accused. 2010 YLR 1048
S.376,377,511 Attempt to commit rape and sodomy- Accused prima facie was less than 16 years at time when alleged offence was committed, 4 months behind the bars, punishment for attempt was half, S.10(7)(c) JJSO,2000, child was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, if he had been behind the bars for more than four months, except in cases punishable with death or imprisonment for life, would be entitled to bail. 2010 YLR 1960
S.9(c) CNSA Car given on superdari subject to deposit of cash Rs.7,00000 with the nazir of the court within 30 days. The nazir is further directed to deposit the said amount in some government Profitable Scheme and no profit shall be encashed by either party till the decision of the court. 2010 YLR 254
S.514 Forfeiture of bonds- In matters of sureties no lenient view should be taken and the entire amount of the bail bond should be recovered as an amount of penalty and reduction of penalty to the tune of 1/5th or 1/10th was simply ridiculous and encouraged the people to go into abscondance. 2010 YLR 2930 (contra 466, 1946 reduced)
S.516-A Charge of selling substandard and injurious to health cold drinks- No objection certificate issued by the policedid not provide a basis to the area majistrateto pass an order of superdari. He should have declined the request for superdaari of accused on the basis of material i.e. FIR, recovery memo etc It is painful to note that the area magistrate in fact mortgaged his functions and duties to the police. 2010 YLR 14* rel (PLD 1979 Kar 430, Lah 613)
S.540 Application for recalling and re-examination of witness already examined and cross-examined- dismissed 2010 YLR 1157
The punishment provided for the offence is three years which does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause, accused no more required for the purpose of further investigation to police, the rule in such like cases is bail not the jail. Following the rule laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in PlLD 1995 Sc 34, I allow the application.
S.419,420,468,471 result card advocate. Such persons could not be let loose on the society to repeat the offence, offence charged against accused, no doubt, did not fall within prohibitory clause, where grant of bail was a rule and refusal an exception, but case of accused in view of above circumstances was an exceptional caseand an exception could be used against him, Rejected. 2010 PCrLJ 419
Grant of bail in cases not falling within the domain of prohibition clause of proviso to section 497 Cr.P.C is not a rule of universal application. Each case has to be seen through its own facts and circumstances. Grant of bail no doubt, is a discretion granted to a court, but its exercise cannot be arbitrarily, fanciful or perverse. 2009 SCMR 174, 2009 PCrLJ 1140.
Court may decline bail to accused in offences not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C, if there exist recognized exceptional circumstances. 2001 PCrLJ 291
Shaky evidence of the prosecution has been discussed. For the safe administration of justice, it is not the quantity but the quality of evidence produced before the court to considered for reaching a correct conclusion and just decision of the case. 2010 PCrLJ 458
The facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record suggests that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and while extending him the benefit of the doubt, he deserves acquittal.
Law for the purpose of bail is not to be stretched in favour of prosecution, benefit of doubt if any, arising in the case must go to the accused at bail stage. I am fortified by PLD 1972 SC 277, 2010 PCrLJ 572.
Through an amendment S.489-F had been inserted and dishonestly issuing a cheque for the purpose of discharging an obligation which cheque is dishonouredhas clearly been made a crime and , thus, the petitionermay not be allowedto take shelter behind a civil statute to avoid his criminal liability. 2010 PCrLJ 590
When the law itself has made a particular action criminally culpable then an attempt to thwart the intention of such law with reference to a civil statute may not be acceptable. 2010 PCrLJ 590
Any statement or further statement of the first informant recorded by investigation officer during investigation would neither be equated with the FIR nor red as a part of the same. 2010 PCRLJ 1593
Commencement of trial in the case is not ground for refusal of bail, if case of accused otherwise requires further inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.p.C. 2010 PCRLJ 1926, 2007 SCMR 1178,PLD 1989 SC 585
It is well settled principle of law that statement of one co-accused cannot be used against the other co-accused. 2010 PCRLJ 1744
Holy Quran in very clear terms in Surah Bani Israeel declares and upholds the principles of human dignity. According to this Islamic injunction every person born in this world without reference to colour, caste and creed is clothed with dignity; it is free gift from Allah Almighty and no human being has the authority to tear as under the cloak of honour conferred by the Lord Creator.
Mere assault of women was not sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of S.454 PPC, but there were other circumstances to show that accused had the requisite knowledge or intention. Prosecution story was also not appealing because it would be a rear case when a father in the company of his two sons would try to outrage the modesty of a woman. No unimpeachable and independent evidence was available to support the prosecution version. FIR was lodged with an unexplained and inordinate delay of about five hours. 2010 PCrLJ 1806.
Name of the accused did not figure out in the FIR, but he was later on implicated in the FIR through supplementary statement recorded after registration of FIR which was belated. False implication of accused could not be ruled out. Alleged abductee had reached her home, keeping accused behind the bars as punishment would not fulfill any useful purpose. 2010 PCrLJ 1782
If one accused, for whatever reasons, bona fide or mala fide, is not proceeded against, other accused cannot claim that he should be allowed to go scot-free. 2010 PCRLJ 1832
It is well settled principle of law that mere relationship is no ground for discarding the evidence of the prosecution witness, unless and until his enmity is established with the accused person. 2010 PCRLJ 1787. PLD 2007 SC(AJ&K) 102
Mere relationship per se is not sufficient to throw out the case of prosecution. In the same way on the basis of strained relations between the complainant and accused party, the prosecution case cannot be held concocted and fabricated. 2007 PCrLJ 246
Order of Magistrate for the constitution of medical board is not judicial order but an administrative order. No revision lies against that order. The innocent request of the petitioner was allowed to re-examine injuries. 2010 PCrLJ 1799
The law is that every criminal proceeding(and in fact every civil proceeding) is to be decided on the material on record of that proceeding and neither the record of another case nor ant finding recorded therein should affect the decision. If the court takes into consideration evidence recoded in another case of a finding recorded therein the judgment is vitiated. PLD 1967 SC 708, 1996 PCrLJ 514
It does not mean that corroboration should be from an independent witness, but anything in the circumstances satisfying the court that each interested witness has spoken truth sufficient for corroboration. It is not necessary that the corroborative evidence should also be of same probative force. 2010 PCrLJ 1787, PLD 2007 SC(AJ&K) 102
The Hon’ble apex court held that where the witnesses made improvements in order to bring in accord ocular testimony with the medical evidence causes serious doubts on veracity of their testimony, their evidence is of a doubtful character and the possibilities were that this was an unwitnessed crime. 2010 PCrLJ 1842, 1984 SCMR 42
Mere abscondence is not a proof of guilt of any accused person. Abscondence may be a relevant fact but the same cannot be used for entailing conviction on capital charge alone when the ocular account is not trustworthy and does not get any corroboration from any other source. 1974 PCrLJ 208, 2005 PCrLJ 1667, 2006 SCMR 1707, 2010 PCrLJ 1842,
When there be two possibilities open upon the evidence of the prosecution, the possibility which goes in favour of the accused should be accepted. 2004 SCR 36, PLD 1995 SC 1, 1971 SCMR 357,1994 SCR 275
Taking of victim from path to a nearby Wahn would not constitute kidnapping. PLD 1994 FSC 23
It is well settles proposition in criminal administration of justice that each criminal case is to be adjudged in the background of its own facts and circumstances, as the facts of two criminal cases seldom coincide. 2010 PCrLJ 1866
Accused though not nominated in the FIR, but material collected during investigation was sufficient to hold involvement of accused in the commission of offence.
Facts and circumstances of the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are quite different to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
It is well settled principle of criminal administration of justice that when an accused is acquitted of the charge, he enjoys double presumption of innocence in his favour.
2004 SCMR 1185, 2010 PCrLJ 1871
The golden principle of law is that a chain of culprits may be let free to prevent punishment to an innocent person; a single circumstance creating doubt as to the guilt, is sufficient to acquit the accused from the charge of the case; and a single reason arising out of one’s evidence, is sufficient to discard his entire evidence. 2010 PCrLJ 1877
When the statement of witness was not challenged in the cross-examination, it would be legally proved to have been accepted by the opposite side. 2001 SCMR 1700
The constitutional guarantee is confined only to duplicate punishment and is silent in so far as acquittal is concerned. Section 403(1) Cr.P.C., however prohibits the second trial for an offence during the course of existence of conviction or acquittal of a person, as the case may be, in consequence of final adjudication of such an offence by a court of competent jurisdiction. Thus the rule against “ autrefois acquit” finds place in section 403(1)Cr.P.C. and the counterpart of this rule “autrefois convict” has received recognition in the constitutional guarantee embodied in Article 13(a). 1995 SCMR 626, 2010 PCrLJ 1980
The evidence should be of such a degree and character that it should exclude the possibility of innocence of an accused. Besides, it should together all the chains of prosecution story so as to convince the court to reach an irresistible conclusion that the accused person was the culprit beyond any reasonable doubt. 1992 SCR 366, 2010 PCrLJ 1567
Finding of guilt against the accused person cannot be based merely on the high probabilities. If a case were to be decided merely on high probability regarding the existence or non-existence of a fact to pr0ve the guilt of a person, the golden rule of “benefit of doubt” to an accused person, which has been a dominant feature of the administration of criminal justice in this country, will be reduced to naught. PLD 1970 SC 10, 2010 PCrLJ 1593
S.497 CrPC Principles regarding grant and refusal of bail.
(PLD 2009 PESH 28) PLD 1988 SC 413, PLD 1995 SC 500, PLD 1978 SC 256
S.376/511 broken string, shalwar and shirt recovered, no medical,Further inquiry-bail granted 2009 MLD 19, 2007 PCRLJ 1149,
S.337-A(ii) 2009 MLD 21,
S.392/34 further inquiry, bail granted. 2009 MLD 30
S.201 bailable. 2009 MLD 37
S.324/34 further inquiry. 2009 MLD 88/141
S.11 zine accused in jail more than 2 and half years with no progress of case- bailed. 2009 MLD 103
S.337-A(i)(ii),F(i),L(ii) bailed. 2009 MLD 127, Pld 1995 sc 34.
S.324/353/337-A(i) snatching of mobile, bail declined. 2009 MLD 159, 2002 MLD 1474
s.324/34/337-l(ii),F(ii) bailed. 2009 MLD 348, 2004 ylr 94/13, 2004 pcrlj 1862
S.302/364 dead body of deceased had not been recovered, no direct or last scene evidence- bailed. 2009 Mld 184, 2003 SCMR 1419, 2001 Scmr 14, 2008 Pcrlj 129, 2007 Ylr 1576, 2004 Pcrlj 143, 2007 Pcrlj 1064, 2007 Mld 1460, 2007 pcrlj 1579, 1996 Scmr 1485, 1990 Pcrlj 1541, 2008 Ylr 1134, Pld 1997 sc 545, 2005 Pcrlj 43, 1995 Scmr 1765
s.120-B/121 inciting and indulging in preparation of minor girls for suicidal attacks- bailed. 2009 Mld 242,
Really nice post! I appreciate about it. Do you know about the Famous lawyer, who can bail firstly or if you have another site like https://coastbailbonds.com/orange-county/bail-bonds/, please. Let me know.
ReplyDeleteThank you