2007 PLP 85 (MLD)
KHALID IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 85 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHALID IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 85 (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 2007 PLP 85 (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: 2007 PLP 85 (MLD) (KHALID IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.379---Application for cancellation of bail---Bail was granted to respondent/accused on grounds that there was a delay of 7/8 months in lodging F.I.R.; that name of father of main accused whose bail was declined by same order, was not mentioned in the application submitted by petitioner/complainant for registration of the case and that he could have been involved by complainant due to ulterior motives---Main thrust of allegation in F.I.R. was against son of respondent/accused---Court below had not committed any illegality as conclusions drawn by it could not be termed as unrealistic---Even otherwise considerations for grant and cancellation of bail, were quite distinct and counsel for petitioner, (complainant) could not point out any illegality, irregularity, perversity or arbitrariness in the orders of the Court requiring interference by High Court---Case of petitioner was not that the respondent/accused after the grant of bail had misused the concession in any manner---Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed in circumstances.
- Sardar Roshan Ali Sindhu for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.379
Application for cancellation of bail
Bail was granted to respondent/accused on grounds that there was a delay of 7/8 months in lodging F.I.R.; that name of father of main accused whose bail was declined by same order, was not mentioned in the application submitted by petitioner/complainant for registration of the case and that he could have been involved by complainant due to ulterior motives
Main thrust of allegation in F.I.R. was against son of respondent/accused
Court below had not committed any illegality as conclusions drawn by it could not be termed as unrealistic
Even otherwise considerations for grant and cancellation of bail, were quite distinct and counsel for petitioner, (complainant) could not point out any illegality, irregularity, perversity or arbitrariness in the orders of the Court requiring interference by High Court
Case of petitioner was not that the respondent/accused after the grant of bail had misused the concession in any manner
Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Through this petition the petitioner has sought cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khushab, vide order, dated 18-5-2006 inter alia on the grounds that the articles allegedly stolen by the said respondent had yet to be recovered and that the DSP Joharabad, who had lastly investigated the case, had directed the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of bail of the said respondent.
2. I have perused the F.I.R. and the orders of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The bail to respondent No. 2 was granted by the learned Judge holding that there was a delay of 7/8 months in lodging of the F.I.R.; that name of respondent No.2, the father of main accused Amir whose bail was declined by the same order, was not mentioned in the application submitted by the petitioner for the registration of the case and that he could have been involved by the complainant due to ulterior motives. A perusal of the F.I.R. also reveals that the main thrust of allegations is against Amir accused the son of the said respondent.
3. The learned subordinate Court has not committed any illegality as the conclusions drawn by the learned Court cannot be termed as unrealistic. Even otherwise the considerations for grant and cancellation of bail are quite distinct and the learned counsel, has not been able to point out any illegality, irregularity, perversity or arbitrariness in the orders of the learned Court requiring interference by this Court. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 after the grant of bail has misused the concession in any manner.
4. Resultantly, this petition has no force which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./K-63/L Petition dismissed.