1994 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ISHFAQ and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHFAQ and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ISHFAQ and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Idrees for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365/337-A(i)/341
Section 365, P.P.C. had since been deleted and the rest of the offences for which the accused were being prosecuted did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.
Grant of bail in such like cases was a rule and refusal an exception
No tangible evidence was available on record with respect to the misuse of concession of bail allowed to the accused by the Magistrate and the Sessions Court while cancelling their bail had not followed the rule that bail should be cancelled in exceptional cases
Accused were admitted to bail in circumstances.
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337-A(i)/341
Grant of bail in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal is an exception.
Judgment & Decree
S.M. Idrees for Petitioners. Syed Ali Raza for the State. Date of hearing: 19th December, 1993. The petitioners who are involved in a case under sections 337-A(i) and 365, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.292, dated 14-10-1993, registered at Police Station City Chiniot, seek to be admitted to bail. 2. As per F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioners is that they abducted Nasir P.W. and also belaboured him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that section 365, P.P.C. has since been deleted and offences under sections 337-A(i) and 341, P.P.C. do not fall within the prohibitory clause, because maximum sentence for these offences under the law is not more than two years. The petitioners are behind the bars and no longer required by the police for further interrogation. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Magistrate allowed bail to the petitioners vide his order, dated 3-11-1993, which was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, vide his order, dated 5-12-1993, without any legal justification. 4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer has conceded this fact that section 365, P.P.C. has been deleted and the petitioners are now being prosecuted under sections 337-A(i) and 341, P.P.C. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the offences for which the petitioners are being prosecuted do not fall within the prohibitory clause. In such like cases, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Additional sessions Judge while cancelling the bail of the petitioners did not follow the dictum of this Court that bail should be cancelled in exceptional case i.e. where an accused person misused the concession of bail. In this case, there was no tangible evidence available on the record with respect to the misuse of concession of bail by the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C., Chiniot. N.H.Q./M-1502/L Bail allowed.