1988 P Cr (PLP)
IKRAM ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | IKRAM ULLAH — 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: Riaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (IKRAM ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hasnat Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302--Bail, grant of Petitioner's plea of alibi consistently verified to be correct by the Investigating Officer, an Inspector of Police, and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and his name placed in Column No. 2 of Challan- Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances. Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for the Complainant. Muhammad Naeem for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302--Bail, grant of Petitioner's plea of alibi consistently verified to be correct by the Investigating Officer, an Inspector of Police, and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and his name placed in Column No. 2 of Challan- Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances. Hasnat Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for the Complainant. Muhammad Naeem for the State. It is stated by Muhammad Ashraf S .I. , who investigated this case that the petitioner had leaded alibi which was verified and it was found to be correct. It is further submitted that apart from the Investigating Officer the investigation was also verified by S.D.P.O. and Inspector of Police and he also vouched for the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Officer. In this view of the matter, it is stated that the petitioner's name has been placed in Column No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Ibrahim v. Hayat Gul and others (1985 S.C.M.R. 382) contends that the moment it is found that a person is not involved in the commission of offence, then it is his right to seek bail under section 497, Cr. P. C . Considering the entire case from all angles and without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice either side, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C . /Mianwali. S.G.D./I-36/L Bail allowed.