1995 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Tabassum, Advocate.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34
Accused after having availed of the concession of pre-arrest bail for quite some time opted not to appear before the Sessions Court and their bail application was resultantly dismissed
Conduct of accused amounted to misusing of concession of bail and grant of pre-arrest bail would have amounted to giving premium to accused who were, trying to hoodwink the process of law
Judgment & Decree
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34
Accused after having availed of the concession of pre-arrest bail for quite some time opted not to appear before the Sessions Court and their bail application was resultantly dismissed
Conduct of accused amounted to misusing of concession of bail and grant of pre-arrest bail would have amounted to giving premium to accused who were, trying to hoodwink the process of law
Pre- arrest bail was refused to accused in circumstances. Muhammad Aslam Tabassum, Advocate. The petitioners through this petition seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.65, dated 1-3-1995 under section 324/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station "B" Division, Okara.
2. According to F.I.R. the petitioners resorted to the commission of murderous attack on the complainant.
3. The petitioners were allowed the concession of pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Okara, but after availing of the same concession for quite sufficient days, they opted not to appear before the Court and accordingly their bail application was rejected.
4. The conduct of the petitioners amounts to misusing the concession of bail granted by the Sessions Judge. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant the I relief prayed for as that would amount to giving premium to the accused who are trying to hoodwink the process of law. Dismissed. N.H.Q./M-2091/L Bail refused.