2007 PLP 256 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 256 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISMAIL — 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 256 (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 256 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 256 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365 & 368
Only allegation against accused was that alleged abductee was recovered from the house which was not in exclusive possession of accused
No incriminating evidence was available against accused on record
Case against accused called for further inquiry into his guilt
Accused was behind the bars for the last more than 7/8 months and was no more required by the police for further investigation
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Ikram Chaudhary for the State along with Yousaf Ali, S.-I. with record.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.
Petitioner Muhammad Ismail through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.42, dated 25-1-2005 under sections 365/368, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Cantt. Sargodha.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that the abductee was recovered from his house.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case; that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.; that the allegation of abduction is not attributed to him; that the petitioner is an old man of the age of 70 years; and that he is behind the bars for the last more than 7/8 months.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the instant petition.
5. I have carefully considered the submission made from both the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. The only allegation the petitioner is that the alleged abductee was recovered from the house of the petitioner which was not in exclusive possession of the petitioner. No incriminating evidence is available against him on the record. The case calls for further inquiry into his guilt. He is behind the bars for the last more than 7/8 months and no more required by the police for further investigation.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-606/L Bail granted.