YLR 2010

2010 PLP 749 (YLR)

MUMTAZ alias TAJU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.5021-B of 2009, decided on 18th May, 2009.
Honorable Judges
Saif-ur-Rehman, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 PLP 749 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Saif-ur-Rehman, J
Parties MUMTAZ alias TAJU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 749 (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 749 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Saif-ur-Rehman, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 749 (YLR) (MUMTAZ alias TAJU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Mujahid Waseem Chaudhary for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S.498

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380/457

Theft in dwelling house and house breaking

Pre-arrest bail, refusal of

Ground for false implication in the case, could not be made out by accused

Accused was nominated in the F.I.R. and recoveries were yet to be effected

Case for pre-arrest bail having not been made out, bail petition was dismissed. Zafar Iqbal Bhatti for the Complainant. Shahid Mahmood Khan, Dy.P.-G. assisted by Muhammad Safdar, S.-I. with record.

Judgment & Decree

SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.

Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail through this petition in case F.I.R. No.39, dated 23-1-2009 registered under sections 380/457 P.P.C. at Police Station Sadar Arifwala.

2. He is alleged to have committed theft of two buffalos owned by the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case against the petitioner was false. F.I.R. was lodged with an unexplained delay of one month and three days Mst. Sobia, maternal niece of the complainant had contracted marriage with .Saddam Hussain. The petitioner was witness of that Nikah which had taken place against the consent of the complainant and due to this grudge the complainant had falsely implicated the petitioner in this case.

4. It was contended that Niaz brother of the complainant was arrested in this case, however, no recovery was effected from him and he was discharged in the case.

5. The petition was opposed by the learned complainant and counsel for the learned D.P.G. It was submitted that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. He has been found guilty during police investigation. Recovery was yet to be effected and no mala fide could be established against police or against the complainant.

6. The petitioner was inquired as to whether there was any evidence that marriage between Saddam Hussain and Mst. Sobia had taken place against the wishes of parents of Mst. Sobia or the complainant, it was conceded that no such evidence was available. If at all this was the reason of false implication of the petitioner, in the first instance, the complainant would have involved Saddam Hussain in this case. The ground for his false implication in this case, therefore, could not be made out by the petitioner. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. recoveries are yet to be effected. Case for pre-arrest bail, therefore, is not made out, hence, this petition is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M-869/L Bail refused.