2007 PLP 394 (YLR)
GULFAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 394 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | GULFAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 394 (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 2007 PLP 394 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 394 (YLR) (GULFAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Javaid Shaukat for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380, 457 & 411
Bail, grant of-Matter was reported to the police after an unexplained delay of eight days
Thief as alleged would not keep the stolen property in the bushes for more than two years which neither he used nor sold the same
Accused was not named in F.I.R.
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Sh. Imtiaz Ahmad for the State with Afzal, S.I.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.
Gulfam-petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.545, registered at Police Station New Multan, for offences under sections 380/457/411, P.P.C.
2. According to F.I.R., when the complainant went to his factory on 20-10-2003, he found that lock of the room had been broken and .7 mm rifle along with 25 live bullets, car tape recorder and another tape recorder along with Rs.7,200 had been stolen. During investigation the petitioner led to the recovery of allegedly stolen-tape recorder on 7-12-2005 from the bushes.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that the matter was reported to the police after an unexplained delay of eight days; it is revolting to the common sense to believe that a thief would keep the stolen property in the bushes for more than two years, neither he used it himself nor sold it; and the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. In these circumstances, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./G-35/L Bail granted.