2012 PLP 222 (MLD)
SIKANDAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 222 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SIKANDAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 222 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 222 (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: 2012 PLP 222 (MLD) (SIKANDAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365/302/201/109/148/149
Case was initially registered under S.365, P.P.C. and Ss.302, 201, 109, 148 and 149, P.P.C. had been added subsequently
Accused had already been allowed bail under S.365, P.P.C. by Trial Court
F.I.R. had been lodged after a delay of three years
No incriminating evidence was, statedly, available on the file against the accused
Co-accused, whose case was at par with the accused, had been granted bail by Trial Court
Complainant, father of the deceased, present in the court, did not oppose the grant of bail to accused
State also did not oppose the bail petition in view of the circumstances
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.
Through this petition, petitioner Sikandar seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.155 of 2010 dated 24-6-2010, offence under section 365, P.P.C. (subsequently sections 302, 201, 109, 148, 149 were added), registered at Police Station Muhammad Pur District Rajan Pur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that initially the case was registered under section 365, P.P.C. in which the petitioner was allowed bail by the learned trial court; that there is no incriminating evidence available on the file against the petitioner; that there is a delay of about three years in lodging of the F.I.R.; that co-accused of the petitioner, namely Hanif has already been granted bail by the learned trial court and case of the petitioner is at par with the case of his co-accused and he is entitled for bail even on the rule of consistency.
3. Complainant Shahab-ud-Din (father of the deceased), present before the Court, identified by the Investigating Officer, does not oppose the grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General, in view of the statement of the complainant and the bail granting order in favour of co-accused Hanif states that case of the petitioner is not distinguishable than the case of his co-accused, namely Hanif and he does not oppose this bail petition on the ground of consistency.
5. In view of the above, I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein above are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition. N.H.Q./S-121/L Bail allowed.