2001 PLP 319(1) (YLR)
GHULAM RASOOL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 319(1) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 319(1) (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 2001 PLP 319(1) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 319(1) (YLR) (GHULAM RASOOL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Fazal Rauf Joya for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.379/411‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Investigation of the case had been completed‑‑‑Accused was not previous convict and none of the offences against him was punishable with 10 years' imprisonment or more‑‑‑Bail in such‑like cases was to be granted as a rule. Muhammad Amir v. The State 1973 PCr.LJ 205 ref. Yaqoob Ayaz Siddiqui for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.379/411‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Investigation of the case had been completed‑‑‑Accused was not previous convict and none of the offences against him was punishable with 10 years' imprisonment or more‑‑‑Bail in such‑like cases was to be granted as a rule. Muhammad Amir v. The State 1973 PCr.LJ 205 ref. Mian Fazal Rauf Joya for Petitioner. Yaqoob Ayaz Siddiqui for the State. Ghulam Rasool son of Muhammad Hussain/petitioner has sought his post‑arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.114 of 2001 registered at Police Station Pakpattan City, under sections 379/411, P.P.C.
2. According to the allegations contained in the F.I.R., the petitioner was apprehended by the petrolling party having allopathic medicines belonging to the Government Hospital valuing Rs.23,000 which were recovered from his bag. The stance of the petitioner was that he had purchased the same from a store.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The investigation of the case has been completed. He is not a previous convict. None of the offences is punishable with 10 years' imprisonment or more and in such‑like cases bail should be granted as a rule as laid down in the case of Muhammad Amir v. The State (1973 PCr.LJ 205), therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./G‑98/L Bail granted.