2000 PLP 695 (YLR)
TARIQ MALIK — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 695 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Muhammad Khurshid, J |
| Parties | TARIQ MALIK — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 695 (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 2000 PLP 695 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Muhammad Khurshid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 695 (YLR) (TARIQ MALIK — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzoor Qadir for Petitioner.
- Z. H. Raja for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 452/380/337-A(ii)
Cancellation of pre-a rrest bail
Accused were closely related to e complainant party
Civil litigation over property was going on between the parties accused had already joined police investigation and the case had been sent to E Court for trial
Accused were not previous convicts and they had not misused concession of bail granted to them by pl Court
No case for cancellation of bailing been made out against accused, the 'lion was dismissed. Ch. Nizam-ud-Din Arif for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The respondents were admitted to in a case registered against them initially section 395, P.P.C. Later on offence section 395, P.P.C. was dropped by police during investigation and the offence was converted under sections 452, 380 and 337-A (II), P.P.C
2. Cancellation is sought on the ground that respondents never applied for bail under section 337-A(II) but were admitted to bail by the learned lower Court alongwith offence under section 452/380, P.P.C. It was, therefore, contended that the respondents had no case for bail particularly for bail before arrest as they acted desperately by entering into the house of the complainant and had beaten one of the ladies.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that both parties are closely related to each other and after dropping offence under section 395, P.P.C., the application of offence under section 452, P.P.C. had become doubtful because the respondents being co-sharers had a right to enter the property, regarding which they were pitched in civil litigation. Likewise offence under section 380, P.P.C. was also deleted by the police after the deletion of offence under section 395 as aforesaid. In that situation, it was alleged that learned trial Court rightly granted pre-arrest bails to the respondents because mala fide could not be ruled out on the, part of complainant on account of the litigation between the parties. In respect of offence under section 337-A(II), it is contended that the same was requested to be added through a separate application after the police had applied the same. As such there was no ground for the cancellation of bails.
4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that both the respondents are closely related to the complainant side and there is also admittedly civil litigation between them over some property. Respondents have already joined the investigation and the case has been sent to the Court for trial. Respondents are also not previous convict nor they had committed any overt act after having been admitted to bails by the learned trial Court. In such a situation, the petitioner has not been able to make out case for cancellation of bails granted to respondents. This petition is accordingl3 dismissed. N.H.Q./T-68/L Petition dismissed.