2003 PLP 1720 (MLD)
KHALIL AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1720 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHALIL AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1720 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1720 (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: 2003 PLP 1720 (MLD) (KHALIL AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nadeem Iqbal Chaudhry for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.440/148/149
Allegation against accused persons was that they had damaged the crop belonging to the complainant
F.I.R. showed that accused were armed with different weapons, but none received any injury during the occurrence
Co-accused were allowed bail by Trial Court
Accused had joined investigation
Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Jalil Khan for the Complainant. Haji Muhammad Asghar Lang for the State. Date of hearing: 10th December, 2002. Petitioners (Khalil Ahmad, Aqil Ahmad, Muhammad Idrees, Muhammad Arshad and Imitaz Ahmad) seek pre-arrest bail in- case F.I.R. No.562 of 2002, dated 10-11-2002, offence under sections 440/148/149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Yazman, District
2. As per F.I.R., on 9-11-2002, petitioners alongwith co-accused while armed with different weapons, reached the spot and damaged Barseen crop belonging to the complainant, whereas, case was registered on 10-11-2002.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R.; that petitioners had filed civil suit against the complainant party which was decreed in their (petitioners) favour and warrant of possession was also issued, therefore, complainant party falsely implicated them in this case; that no such occurrence took place and that no recovery was effected from co-accused or the petitioners. Further submits that none received injuries during the occurrence and that co-accused namely Liaqat, Muhammad Yaqoob and Irshad Ahmad were allowed bail by the trial Court, therefore, petitioners too deserve concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as State have opposed the application on the grounds that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and that they damaged 'Barseen' crop of the complainant.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The allegation against the petitioners is that they alongwith their co-accused damaged the crop, belonging to the complainant. According to F.I.R., they (petitioners were armed with different weapons but none received any injury during occurrence. Admittedly, co-accused Liaqat, Muhammad Yaqoob and Irshad Ahmad were allowed bail by the trial Court. The petitioners have joined the investigation. As such, without going into the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners. As such this application is accepted and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them is confirmed. However, they are directed to file fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court within seven days, failing which, bail granted to them shall stand cancelled. H.B.T./K-246/L Pre-arrest bail confirmed.