2005 PLP 1656 (YLR)
KHALIL AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1656 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J |
| Parties | KHALIL AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1656 (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 2005 PLP 1656 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1656 (YLR) (KHALIL AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Jamil for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss.379 & 411--Bail, grant of
Alleged recovery had been effected in the case and accused was no more required by police-- Accused was in judicial lock-up since long and no useful purpose would be served to keep him behind the bars for indefinite period
Accused was admitted to bail. Mian Kamran for the State. Fazil Hussain,' A.S.-I. with Record.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Jamil for Petitioner. Mian Kamran for the State. Fazil Hussain,' A.S.-I. with Record. Petitioner Khalil Ahmad has' sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.142 of 2004 dated 1-6-2004 registered against the petitioner and two other unknown persons under 'sections 379/411, P.P.C. at Police Station, Fatehpur District, Layyah.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. is that case was registered on the complaint of Muhammad Ishaq, Forest Guard, who had received information that petitioner was busy in cutting the tree in some forest.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was arrested in this case on 7-11-2004. That the alleged recovery has been effected and case against the petitioner does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. That the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case and he is innocent. That there is no eye-witness of the alleged theft and petitioner is no more required by the police.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed 'the bail petition and submitted that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role has been attributed to the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. The alleged recovery has been effected in this case and petitioner is no more required by the police. Furthermore, petitioner is in the judicial lock-up since 7-11-2004 and no-useful purpose will be served to put him behind the bars for indefinite period. He is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with two suretits each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./K-91/L Bail granted.