2006 PLP 1500 (MLD)
ASMATULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1500 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najum-uz-Zaman, J |
| Parties | ASMATULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1500 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1500 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najum-uz-Zaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1500 (MLD) (ASMATULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Shahid Tabassum for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392 & 412
Report submitted by Trial Court revealed that case would be disposed of within six months and delay in disposal of the matter was due to non-production of accused regularly by the police
Record had also revealed that accused was involved in almost seven cases of like nature
Allowing bail to accused in circumstances would amount to provide accused another opportunity to repeat such-like offences
Bail was refused. Miss Tahseen Irian and Muhammad Zafar, A.S.-I. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJUM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.
Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.110 of 2003, dated 3-7-2003 for the offence under sections 392/412, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Tirkhanwala, District Sargodha, on the grounds that complainant of this case has sworn affidavit exonerating the petitioner and that he is no more interested in the prosecution of this case, though record of this case reveals that petitioner is involved in many other cases of like nature but admittedly there is no conviction against the petitioner in either of the said case; after his arrest petitioner was never put to the test of identification parade to rule out the possibility of his false involvement in this case. Conversely counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail application.
2. Heard. File perused.
3. Report, dated 7-11-2005 submitted by the Trial Court reveals that the case in hand would be disposed of within six months and the delay in disposal of the matter is due to non-production of the accused regularly by the police. Record of this case also reveals that petitioner is involved in almost seven cases of like nature and allowing bail to the petitioner in the circumstances would amount to provide him another opportunity to repeat such-like offences. In these circumstances I am not satisfied to entertain this application, the same stands disposed of with the direction to the Trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously and to take all measures to procure the attendance of the witnesses as well as the accused persons to conclude the trial within the stipulated period. H.B.T./A-119/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.