2007 PLP 1354 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1354 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1354 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1354 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1354 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saleem Anwar Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Accused was in Jail since one year
No progress had been made after submission of challan in Court
Nothing had been recovered from accused and his custody was no more required by Police
Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Keeping accused behind the bars for an indefinite period of time would not serve or advance prosecution's case, rather same would amount to punishment before conviction, which was not permissible under criminal jurisprudence
Bail was granted to accused. Farzana Khan, Assistant Prosecutor General with Muhammad Rafique, S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.10 dated 5-1-2006 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station, A-Division Okara.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent in this case; that no recovery has been effected from him; that the maximum punishment for the offence is 3 years and offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is in jail since one year.
3. Conversely, learned A.P.G. has opposed the grant of bail.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The maximum punishment for the offence is only 3 years but the petitioner is in jail since one year. Challan has been submitted in the Court but no progress has been made so far. The petitioner is no more required by the police and nothing is to be recovered from him. Keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period of time will not serve or advance the prosecution case and it amounts to punishment before the conviction, which is not permissible under the criminal jurisprudence.
6. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond 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-169/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.