YLR 2005

2005 PLP 1048 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD QASIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.666-B of 2001, decided on 25th October, 2004.
Honorable Judges
Bashir A. Mujahid, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2005 PLP 1048 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Bashir A. Mujahid, J
Parties MUHAMMAD QASIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1048 (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 2005 PLP 1048 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Bashir A. Mujahid, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1048 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD QASIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • N. A. Butt for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S.497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.382 & 411

Bail, grant of

No weapon of offence was recovered from accused during the investigation

One of Investigating Officer who was D.S.P. found the case to the extent of snatching of vehicle by accused as false

Accused was no more required for investigation and was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Abdul Qayyum Anjum for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Muhammad Qasim son of Abdul Khaliq seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.292, dated 16-7-2004 under sections 382, 411, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Gulberg, Faisalabad.

2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused Muhammad Azam and Boota snatched vehicle from complainant on gun-point.

3. The petitioner was arrested on 21-7-2004 and after investigation has been sent in judicial lock-up. He was declined after arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide order dated 14-9-2004. Hence this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, for the complainant and for the State have been heard exhaustively and record has been perused.

5. During investigation no weapon of offence was recovered from the petitioner. Petitioner is brother of Muhammad Azam who disputes ownership of the complainant. He has been sent in judicial lock-up. One of the Investigating Officer, who was D.S.P. also found the case to the extent of snatching of vehicle false. Petitioner is no more required for investigation therefore, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-819/L Bail granted.