YLR 2002

2002 PLP 300 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD MANSHA — Petition Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.66/CS of 2002 decided on 16th January 2002.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 300 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J
Parties MUHAMMAD MANSHA — Petition Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 300 (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 2002 PLP 300 (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: 2002 PLP 300 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD MANSHA — Petition Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Maher Masood Sadiq Tulla for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss.497(S) & 498

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406/34

Pre-arrest bail, grant of- Validity

Bail was granted to the accuser after providing full opportunity of hearing to the parties and after considering all the fact and circumstances of the case

Complainant seeking cancellation of bail could not point out any concealment of facts on behalf of the accused

Allegation that the accused had misused his bail by threatening the complainant, was only a bald assertion and neither time nor any date had been mentioned nor any witness had been named before whom alleged threat was extended

Effect Liberty of a citizen could not be curtailed due to not moved for cancellation of bail-- Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

Ss.497(S) & 498

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406/34

Pre-arrest bail, grant of- Validity

Bail was granted to the accuser after providing full opportunity of hearing to the parties and after considering all the fact and circumstances of the case

Complainant seeking cancellation of bail could not point out any concealment of facts on behalf of the accused

Allegation that the accused had misused his bail by threatening the complainant, was only a bald assertion and neither time nor any date had been mentioned nor any witness had been named before whom alleged threat was extended

Effect Liberty of a citizen could not be curtailed due to not moved for cancellation of bail-- Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed in circumstances. Maher Masood Sadiq Tulla for Petitioner. Through this petition the petitioner has sought cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to Maqsood Ahmad-respondent by this Court vide order dated 14-11-2001 in case F.I.R. No. 157 of 2000 registered at Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal on 5-5-2000 for offences under sections 406/34, P. P. C.

2. In support of this application, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the recovery of Tractor is yet to be effected and that after his release on bail, the respondent accused had been threatening the complainant-petitioner.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record. The order dated 14-11-2001 was passed by this Court after providing full opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the parties and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant could not point out any concealment of facts on behalf of the respondent-Maqsood Ahmed.

4. As. far as the recovery of Tractor is concerned, suffic it to say that no coercive measures can be adopted for the recovery of the same and the law is very clear about it.

5. The allegation that respondent No. 2 Maqsood Ahmad had misused his bail by threatening the petitioner is only a bald assertion. Neither time nor any date has been mentioned nor any witness has been named before whom the respondent Maqsood Ahmad extended threat. The liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed due to the private grudge of a party. The State has also not moved for cancellation of bail. In these circumstance this application having no merit stands dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-1001/L. Application dismissed.