2001 PLP 2707 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD.AMIN BHATTI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2707 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sabihuddin Ahmed, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD.AMIN BHATTI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2707 (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 2001 PLP 2707 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2707 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD.AMIN BHATTI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380/454/457/34
Bail, grant Of-- Protective pre-arrest bail
Confirmation-- Prosecution witnesses who supported the statement of the informant were the sons of the informant
Application for interim bail was converted into application for substantive bail
Interim protection bail was confirmed in circumstances. Ch. A. Rasheed for Applicant. Abbas Ali, Addl. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Learned A.A.-G. states that the S.H.O. Police Station Bahadurabad did not appear despite being informed of the Court order, dated 4-8-2001 but has sent relevant police papers through an A.S.-I.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant emphatically contends that the applicant has no interest in the property' and the allegations contained in the F.I.R. are totally false. It has been pointed out that even in the F.I.R. the informant stated to have got the property vacated from ex-tenant Iqbal Razvi and not the applicant and a copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been delivered to the learned A.A.-G. confirms that position and shows that the applicant was not a party to proceedings. Moreover, learned counsel has placed on record a copy of plaint in Suit No-912 of 2001 showing that one Muhammad Hafeez had filed a suit against the informant's daughter for specific performance in respect of the shop in question, had claimed possession and an interim order, dated 13-7-2001 had been passed in their, favour. It is further contended that the informant has involved the applicant in a false case owing to the fact that the applicant had got F.I.R. No-82 of 2001 recorded against the informant.
3. Learned A.A.-G. candidly states that according to the police papers two persons whose statements have been recorded have claimed the informant to be in possession of the shop whereas the other two persons supporting the informant's version are his own sons. In the circumstances, I would treat this application `as one for substantive bail and the interim protection, granted to the applicant is hereby confirmed. Let notice for 13-8-2001 issue to the S.H.O., Police Station Bahadurabad, Karachi to show cause as to why action for not complying with the Court order, dated 4-8-2001 should not be taken. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-252/K Bail granted