2004 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL REHMAN alias PILLU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Bashir A. Mujahid, J |
| Parties | ABDUL REHMAN alias PILLU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL REHMAN alias PILLU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th July, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4
Accused had no previous criminal history and offence alleged against him did not fall under prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Challan of the case had already been submitted, but no material progress was in sight
No useful purpose could be served by keeping accused behind the bars for an indefinite period
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Ayub for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner Abdul Rehman alias Pillu son of Ahmad Khan seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.157/2003, dated 22-5-2003 under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 registered at P. S. Mochiwala, Jhang with the allegation that the petitioner alongwith Ashiq Shah co-accused were busy in preparing liquor. A raid was conducted and co-accused Ashiq Shah who was owner of the house fled away from the spot and the petitioner was apprehended and 15 litres liquor was taken into possession.
2. The petitioner was declined after arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang vide order, dated 14-6-2003. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State have been heard exhaustively and record has been perused.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner has no previous criminal history and the alleged offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause. The challan of the case has already been submitted but there is no material progress in the trial. No useful purpose can be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, 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 of the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A-177/L Bail granted.