2006 PLP 1517 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD TAHIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1517 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TAHIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1517 (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 2006 PLP 1517 (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: 2006 PLP 1517 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD TAHIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Farooq Hassan Naqvi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392
Looted property (car) was recovered from accused during investigation
Accused was also named in F.I.R. with specific role, that at the relevant time he, along with other co-accused had committed, robbery
Trial in the case had already commenced and report submitted by Trial Court revealed that case was likely to be concluded within six months
Bail petition in circumstances stood dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.
Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.58 of 2004, dated 13-3-2004 for the offence under section 392, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Faisalabad, on the ground that petitioner has been falsely involved in this case; bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that story narrated therein was an afterthought because the petitioner was, known to the complainant party prior to the occurrence but at the time of lodging the F.I.R. complainant had specifically stated that three unknown persons had committed this offence but in the second breath he named the petitioner as one of the assailant. It is submitted that there is delay of twelve days in lodging the F.I.R. and during the investigation fake recovery was planted upon the petitioner. Conversely counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail application.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have observed that during the investigation looted property (car) was recovered from the petitioner. Petitioner is also named in the F.1.R. with the specific role that at the relevant time he along with other co-accused had committed this robbery. Even otherwise trial in this case has already commenced and report submitted by the Trial Curt reveals that case in hand is likely to be concluded within six months. Thus having no merits this petition stands dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel has asked for expeditious disposal of the trial. In this view of the matter, Trial Court is directed to accelerate the proceedings and conclude the same within four months instead of six months as reported. H.B.T./M-335/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.