2008 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD BILAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BILAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2008 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD BILAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Khaliq Safrani for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.376 & 511
Accused was involved in heinous offence which fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C. with specific role
Accused during investigation was found guilty of the offence
Counsel for accused had failed to bring on record previous enmity between the parties to involve accused falsely in the case, which was the basic requirement for grant of pre-arrest bail
No case for grant of pre-arrest bail having been made out, bail petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.
Muhammad Bilal, the petitioner, seeks pre-arrest bail, in case F.I.R. No.462 of 2007, dated 2-10-2007, offences under sections 376/511, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, City Samundri, District Faisalabad with the allegation that the petitioner attempted to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with the daughter of the complainant.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention; that there is inordinate delay of 5 days in lodging of the F.I.R. without any explanation; that during the investigation, it has been proved that neither the door of the P.C.O. was locked from outside nor the door was broken by the witnesses nor the wearing clothes of the victim were torn or damaged in any manner and even not a single mark of violence was found on the person of the alleged victim.
3. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned D.P.G. appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed this bail petition contending that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence with specific role.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. with specific role. During the investigation, the petitioner found guilty of the offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring on record previous enmity between the parties to involve the petitioner falsely in this case, which is the basic requirement for grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. In view of the attending circumstances, no case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out, hence this bail petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M-627/L Bail refused.