2003 PLP 1528 (MLD)
SHABBIR and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1528 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHABBIR and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1528 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1528 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1528 (MLD) (SHABBIR and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tahir Mahmood for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.379/411
Bail, grant of- Recovery had taken place
Accused were behind the bars and were previous non-convict- --Alleged offence did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Hameed Khokhar for the State. Shabbir, Munir, Muhammad Amir and Nasir, the petitioners have sought for after-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No.2 dated 2-1-2003 under sections 379/411, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Ahmad Yar, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Briefly the allegation as per F.I.R. is that they had stolen away 5 buffalos worth Rs.2,35,000 of the complainant from his cattle shed.
3. It has been contended that they have falsely been roped in with mala fide intention of the complainant that they are behind the bars for the last more than three months; that their case does not fail within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and that they are previous non-convict.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The alleged recovery has taken place. They are behind the bars and previous non-convict.
7. The alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
8. In these circumstances, I am inclined to admit them to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum or Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate. H.B.T./S-656/L Bail granted.