2008 PLP 2282 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD JAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 2282 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 2282 (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 2008 PLP 2282 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 2282 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD JAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mrs. Saeeda Asif for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 365-H, 395, 448, 148 & 149
Accused persons were not nominated in the F.I.R., but were only witnesses to the Nikah of alleged abductee with the co-accused, who had been allowed bail by the Trial Court
Accused persons, in circumstances, were also entitled to the grant of bail in view of the rule of consistency. Imtiaz v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 1107; Aurangzeb alia Ranga v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 1299 and Fida Hussain v. The State and others 2002 SCMR 46 ref. Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, D.P.-G. Murid Hussain Naib Dafedar in person. Mian Masood Akhtar for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.
The petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.7 dated 29-12-2006 registered under sections 324,365-H, 395, 448, 148 and 149, P.P.C. at B.M.P. Police Station Koshaba Sori, Tribal Area, District Dera Ghazi Khan.
2. Originally the petitioners were not named in the F.I.R. but were arrested on the allegation that they played their part of preparation of fake Nikahnama of abductee with Muhammad Siddique co-accused and also harboured the offender.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case as they are witnesses to the Nikah of Mst. Anma Mai alleged abductee with the co-accused Muhammad Siddique; that no recovery has been effected from the petitioners; that the petitioners are not nominated in the F.I.R. and that the main accused Muhammad Siddique has been allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, vide order dated 10-9-2007 and the petitioners are also entitled to the grant of bail in view of the rule of consistency.
4. On the other hand, bail has been opposed by the learned D.P.G.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioners are not nominated in the F.I.R. They are only witnesses to the Nikah of Mst. Amna alleged abductee with the co-accused Muhammad Siddique, who has been allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge Dera Ghazi Khan, vide order dated 10-9-2007. As such, the petitioners are also entitled to the grant of bail in view of the rule of consistency. Relying upon the cases of Imtiaz v. The State (2006 PCr.LJ 1107), Aurangzeb alias Ranga v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 1299 and Fida Hussain v. The State and others (2002 SCMR 46) and following the rule of consistency, the petitioners are allowed bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-232/L Bail granted.