2002 PLP 1437 (MLD)
QAMAR AWAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1437 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sheikh Abdur Razzaq, |
| Parties | QAMAR AWAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1437 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1437 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sheikh Abdur Razzaq,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1437 (MLD) (QAMAR AWAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Afzal on behalf of Ejaz Ahmad Awan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 25th October, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal. Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.382/411‑‑‑Bail grant of‑‑ Only a dagger was alleged to have been recovered from accused‑‑‑No amount alleged to have been snatched from the complainant was recovered from accused ‑‑‑Case against accused requiring further probe, he was admitted to bail. Kazim Iqbal Bhango for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in F.I.R. No.283 dated 24‑7‑2001 under sections 382/411, P.P.C, registered at Police Station Khurrianwala. District Faisalabad.
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the F.I.R. are that on 21‑7‑2001 while the complainant was on his way to brick‑kiln for purchasing bricks he was waylaid by the three persons who were later on disclosed to be Dawood, Shahbaz and Qamar Awan (present petitioner). They are said to have deprived him of Rs.11,010 as well as wrist‑watch. They are further stated to be armed with pistol and dagger.
3. The petitioner applied for bail which relief has been declined to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala vide his order dated 14‑9‑2001. Hence the instant petition.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was arrested on 24‑7‑2001 and except a dagger nothing else has been recovered from him. He further submits that his co‑accused have also been arrested, that from his co‑accused Dawood and Shahbaz a sum of Rs.7,750 and Rs.3,000 has been recovered respectively.
6. Conversely bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State. However, it is admitted that the petitioner is not a previous convict.
7. Since only a dagger is said to have been recovered from the present petitioner and no amount alleged to have been snatched from the complainant has been recovered from the present petitioner and he being in jail since 1‑8‑2001, his case requires further probe. As such the petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./Q‑18/L Bail granted.