2010 PLP 2664 (YLR)
ABDUL QADEER KHAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 2664 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J |
| Parties | ABDUL QADEER KHAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 2664 (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 2010 PLP 2664 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 2664 (YLR) (ABDUL QADEER KHAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.447, 511, 337-H(ii), 379, 148 & 149
Criminal trespass, attempt to commit offences, hurt by rash or negligent act and theft
Accused was on bail before arrest
Earlier, the Trial Court had refused bail to accused for non-prosecution and later on bail application filed by accused was dismissed by the High Court on account of non-prosecution-Said two orders had shown that accused had been misusing extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail
Even otherwise, accused were named in F.I.R. with a specific role
Prima facie, no element of mala fide was available in the case
When first bail application was dismissed by the Trial Court, accused despite surrendering themselves, had been playing hide and seek by filing application for pre-arrest bail and then not appearing
Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances. Hammad Akbar Walana for the Complainant. Ishaque Masih Naz, Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab with Shaukat, S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.
The learned counsel seeks' pre-arrest bail of the petitioners who stand implicated in F.I.R. No.150 of 2008, dated 16-5-2008, under sections 447, 511, 337-H(ii), 379, 148 and 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Ghar Maharaja, District Jhang.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R. on 11-5-2008, while the complainant was working on his land, petitioners trespassed and started firing, he could save his life barely while hiding himself in the poultry farm. The petitioners/accused also took away his mobile phone and Rs.5200. The earlier bail application for pre-arrest was dismissed by this Court on 30-7-2008 on account of non-prosecution. Likewise, their bail was also refused on 13-6-2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shorkot on account of non-prosecution. The above two orders show that petitioners have been misusing extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. Even otherwise, petitioners are named in the F.I.R with a specific role. Prima facie, there is no element of mala fide. Their first bail application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 30-6-2008 but in spite of surrendering themselves, petitioners had been playing hide and seek by filing application for pre-arrest and then not appearing as narrated above.
3. For the above reasons, this bail application is dismissed. H.B.T./A-53/L Bail refused.