2002 PLP 1628 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD WAIZ KHAN alias AWAIS KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1628 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Bashir A. Mujahid, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD WAIZ KHAN alias AWAIS KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1628 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1628 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Bashir A. Mujahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1628 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD WAIZ KHAN alias AWAIS KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was not named in F.I.R., and his arrest was shown subsequently‑‑‑Nothing had been received from the possession of accused despite he remained on physical remand with police for considerable period‑‑ Involvement of accused being matter of further inquiry, he was admitted to bail. Syed Manzoor Hussain Gillani for the Petitioner. Sh. Asghar Ali for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Waiz Khan alias Awais Khan son of Muhammad Zarif Khan, seeks post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.532 of 2000 dated 23‑10‑2000, under sections 457/380, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh and F.I.R. No.620 of 2000 dated 5‑12‑2000 registered with the same police station at the instance of Muhammad Arshad Gohar and Mirza Javed Saleh respectively. Both the cases were registered against unknown persons with the allegations that carpets lying in the store of complainants of both the cases were found stolen.
2. After arrest bail was refused to the petitioner in both the cases by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 17‑8‑2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State have been heard exhaustively.
4. Admittedly the petitioner is not nominated accused in the F.I.Rs. Subsequently his arrest was shown but nothing has been recovered from his possession despite the fact that he remained on physical remand with the police for considerable period. In view of this fact, the involvement of the petitioner is matter of further inquiry and I am persuaded to allow him bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in each case in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M‑1221/L Bail granted.