1987 PLP 1352 (SCMR)
M.C.W.KAMDIA and another Petitioners Versus SAJJAD HUSSAIN KHAN and others Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1352 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | M.C.W.KAMDIA and another Petitioners Versus SAJJAD HUSSAIN KHAN and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1352 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1352 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1352 (SCMR) (M.C.W.KAMDIA and another Petitioners Versus SAJJAD HUSSAIN KHAN and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 19‑1‑1987 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3269‑B of 1986). ‑‑‑Ss. 497(5) & 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 379‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Bail before arrest, cancellation of‑‑Respondents charged under S. 379, P.P.C. for committing theft of crop sown by them allowed anticipatory bail‑‑Order impugned‑‑Since question at trial would arise whether they could be charged with offence of theft for removing crop sown by themselves, order granting anticipatory bail was not open to interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused. JUDGMENT
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the order dated 19‑1‑1987 of the Lahore High Court whereby respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to be admitted to anticipatory bail.
2. The allegations against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are that they committed an offence under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code by committing theft of crop worth Rs.86,
800. It is not disputed that the crop was sown by respondents Nos. l to 3 themselves. In the circumstances a serious question at the trial would arise whether they could be charged with the offence of theft for removing the crop sown by themselves. We, therefore, do not think that this a fit case for interference by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M . I . / M‑107 / S Petition dismissed.