2007 PLP 1759 (YLR)
GHULAM ABBAS SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1759 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J |
| Parties | GHULAM ABBAS SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1759 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1759 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1759 (YLR) (GHULAM ABBAS SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abid Saqi for Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM -UZ-ZAMAN, J.
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.968 of 2004, dated 25-12-2004 registered under sections 394/411, P.P.C. at Police Station, South Cantt., Lahore on the grounds that he had been falsely involved in this case on the .mere suspicion, he was never put to the test of identification parade and that during the investigation fake recovery was planted on him. If the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is even then only offence under section 411, P.P.C. is attracted which is punishable for three years' R.I. Further submits that there was a delay of sixteen hours in lodging the F.I.R. Conversely, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application.
2. After going through the record, I have observed that though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but on the same day injured witness namely Javaid Sehgul, Mst. Tareen Sehgul and Security Guard namely Zoqa Khan while making statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. had specifically, stated that it was the petitioner who along with driver while breaking open the door entered into the house caused injures to them and thereafter took away their .belonging. In the light of the statements of injured witnesses who have no axe to grind against the petitioner, no ground for bail is made out. Dismissed. H.B.T./G-19/L Bail refused.