1988 P Cr (PLP)
MUBASHAR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUBASHAR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (MUBASHAR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Liaqat Ali Sindhu for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.411‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Complainant as well as eye‑witnesses failed to identify petitioner in identification parade‑‑Name of petitioner was not mentioned in F.I.R.‑‑Alleged offence of recovery of stolen motor‑cycle punishable under S.411, P.P.C. did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Mrs. Agnus Tabasum for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Liaqat Ali Sindhu for Petitioner. Mrs. Agnus Tabasum for the State. This is an application for grant of bail to Mubashar Hussain petitioner in a case under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at P.S. Daska, vide F.I.R. No. 667, dated 18‑9‑1986.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and two others forcibly removed motor‑cycle from the possession of the complainant which was subsequently recovered from the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R.; that he was not identified by the complainant and the eye‑witnesses in the identification parade and that the alleged offence of the recovery of stolen motor‑cycle does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that as for offence punishable under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, the complainant as well as the eye‑witnesses could not identify the petitioner in the parade held for the identification of the culprits; that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and that the alleged offence of the recovery of stolen motor‑cycle punishable under section 411, P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause‑of section 497, Cr.P.C. For what has been said above, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C . /Duty Magistrate, Daska. H. B. T./M‑562/L Bail granted.