2006 PLP 437 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 437 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISMAIL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 437 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 437 (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: 2006 PLP 437 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Akhtar Hussain Bhatti for Petitioner.
- 4. Ch. Maajid Hussain, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. The complainant who is present in person states that a compromise has been effected between the parties and that he would have no objection if the interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioners is confirmed.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.498 & 345
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 466, 468. & 471
Offences with which accused was charged, though were not compoundable, but since a compromise had been effected, it would be in the interest of both the parties that concession of pre-arrest bail be allowed as same would go a long way in mending cordial relationship between the parties which had existed before commencement of litigation
Interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
M. BILAL KHAN, J
Muhammad Ismail son of Allah Ditta and Khubaib Ahmed son of Ahmed petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.250/05 dated 12-5-2005 registered at Police Station Saddar Okara, for offences under sections 420, 466, 468, 471 P.P.C.
2. The allegation in the F.I.R. registered at the instance of Shaukat Ali Bhatti was that he had lent his Ahata to Muhammad Ismail petitioner No.1 for his use but later on he possessed the same illegally and in connivance with the Revenue officials got the same mutated in the name of his sons. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. had been recorded.
3. The petitioners applied for their pre-arrest bail which had been turned down by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Okara vide dated 3-6-2005. Hence this petition.
4. Ch. Maajid Hussain, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. The complainant who is present in person states that a compromise has been effected between the parties and that he would have no objection if the interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioners is confirmed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Although the offences charged with are not compoundable yet since a compromise has been effected therefore, it would be in the interest of both the parties that the concession of pre-arrest bail be allowed as the same will go a long way in mending the cordial relationships between the parties which had admittedly A existed before the commencement of litigation. hi this connection reliance has been placed on, Mazhar Iqbal v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 923 (Lahore) and Muhammad Hussain v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 1853).
6. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners in terms of this Court order dated 16-6-2005 is hereby confirmed. H.B.T./M-1339/L Bail confirmed.