2000 P Cr (PLP)
MAQSOOD ALIAS SOODA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Kh. Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MAQSOOD ALIAS SOODA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Kh. Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (MAQSOOD ALIAS SOODA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Najeeb Faisal for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 9th July, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused was behind the bars for the last about six months ‑‑‑Co‑accused in the case had neither been arrested nor any proceedings under 5.87/88, Cr.P.C. were initiated against him‑‑‑No complete or incomplete challan had so far been submitted in the Court‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Muhammad Iqbal Butt for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application for bail after arrest on behalf of Maqsood alias Sooda.
2. The allegations according to the F.I.R. against the petitioner were that on 16‑1‑1999 at 8 a.m. when complainant was going towards his house, two persons armed with fire‑arms met him. They stopped him and on his personal search Rs.200, handkerchief and a photo copy of the identity card were snatched from him. F.I.R. further reveals that the person who was armed with carbine was identified as Maqsood alias Sooda.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits. that case against the petitioner is false, that in fact the complainant party was very influential and they had already involved the petitioner in a case under section 302, P.P.C., in which he was arrested and then was allowed bail. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not a P.C. He has also placed on record a certified copy of case F.I.R. No.81 of 1996, dated 20‑3‑1996, registered on the statement of Syed Akbar Ali Shah. Learned counsel submits that both the complainants of the F.I.R. No.16 of 1998 and F.I.R. No.81 of 1996 are close relatives.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R., offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 197(1), Cr.P.C. Petitioner was arrested in this case on 28‑1‑1999, about six months have passed. Neither his co‑accused has been arrested nor any proceedings under section 87/88, Cr.P.C., were initiated against him. No complete or incomplete challan has been submitted in Court, so far. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. N.H.Q./M‑1270/L Ball allowed.