2007 PLP 1020(1) (YLR)
Sheikh MUHAMMAD AMIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1020(1) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J |
| Parties | Sheikh MUHAMMAD AMIN — 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 1020(1) (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 1020(1) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1020(1) (YLR) (Sheikh MUHAMMAD AMIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tamoor Tahar Kharal for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Order passed by the Trial Court in refusing bail to accused had shown that accused had failed to appear before the Court and had also not furnished surety bonds as directed by the Court
Accused, who stood nominated in F.I.R., had allegedly misused concession of pre-arrest bail
Contention of counsel for accused that accused was innocent and deserved concession of bail, was repelled as accused was fully involved in the commission of offence
Prima facie accused being connected with commission of offence, his bail application was dismissed. Uzma Razaq for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.
The petitioner has filed this bail application for pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No.116 of 2006 dated 18-2-2006 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station, Civil Line, District Faisalabad.
2. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 4-5-2006 shows that petitioner had failed to appear before the Court and he had also not furnished surety bonds as directed by that Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further noted that petitioner misuse the concession of pre-arrest bail. In the F.I.R. petitioner stands nominated.
3. The learned counsel for the State submits- that petitioner has been found guilty during the course of investigation.
4. In view of the above facts, the contention of the- learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and deserves extraordinary concession of the pre-arrest bail from this Court cannot change the legal position under which accused person can be granted pre-arrest bail when prima facie, he appears not to be involved in the commission of an offence which is not the position in the present case. In view of conduct of petitioner before the Sessions Court and finding of the Investigating Officer, prima facie, the petitioner seems connected with the commission of offence. Resultantly, this bail application of the pre-arrest bail is dismissed. H.B.T./M-556/L Bail refused.