1994 PLP 1131 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1131 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1131 (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 1994 PLP 1131 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1131 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Zulqarnain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(1)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392
Complainant had no enmity to falsely involve the accused
Accused had been arrested red handed with the case property and the crime weapon
F.I.R. had been promptly registered
Sufficient grounds, thus, existed to believe accused's involvement in the offence charged which fell within the prohibition contemplated by S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
Bail was sought in the case registered vide F.I.R. No.232 of 22-7-1993 under section 392, P.P.C. at Police Station Sadar Kamoke alleging robbing off the complainant of his yellow cab bearing registration mark 7071/LHP by the petitioner along with his companion Muzammal respectively equipped with Carbine and a knife near railway crossing Sadhoke having rented in the same around 5-30 p.m. from Lahore Railway Station for journey to Gujranwala, names whereof were divulged during inter se conversation while travelling.
2. Contending that save for the complainant's statement prosecution is not possessed of any corroborative piece of evidence lack of identification parade despite being stranger to the complainant as passengers, is not a previous convict and has been falsely implicated on which count has already suffered incarceration of 7 months.
3. With which I am not persuaded because not only despite the query no enmity has been spelt out justifying false implication by the complainant being utter strangers but also reportedly red-handed arrest with the case property -alongwith the crime weapon in hot pursuit in a promptly registered F.I.R., constitute sufficient ground for believing petitioner's involvement in the offence charged falling within the prohibition contemplated by section 497(1), Cr.P.C. renders him disentitled to the sought for concession. Conversely the interest of justice would seem to be better served if the case is expeditiously concluded. Consequently declining bail, learned trial Court seized of the matter, is required to finalise the proceedings expeditiously. N.H.Q./M-1443/L Bail refused.