YLR 2007

2007 PLP 514 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2442-B of 2006, decided on 8th April, 2006.
Honorable Judges
Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP 514 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J
Parties MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner 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 2007 PLP 514 (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 514 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 514 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner 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

  • Mian Muhammad Maqsood Ahmad for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.395 & 412

Bail, refusal of

V.C.D., which was looted during dacoity, had been recovered from accused

Offence under S.412, P.P.C., was punishable with imprisonment for life, which fell within prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.-No case for bail having been made out, bail petition was dismissed. Muhammad Naveed Shabbir Goraya for the State along with Liaqat S.-I.

Judgment & Decree

KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.-Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not named in the FIR.; that he was named in the supplementary statement; that as far as recovery of VCD is concerned, that was planted upon the petitioner because blood relations of petitioner could not give bribe to the police and that he is first offender.

2. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that supplementary statement was got recorded by the complainant on the very next day; that VCD was recovered from the petitioner and that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Without going into merit of the case, fact remain that VCD, which was looted during dacoity, has been recovered from the petitioner. The said offence under section 412, P.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for life, which falls within prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No case for bail is made out. This petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M-265/L Bail refused.