1989 PLP 4170 (MLD)
ANWAR ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4170 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | ANWAR ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4170 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4170 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4170 (MLD) (ANWAR ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- G.H. Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 14‑‑Bail‑‑Accused in jail for last six months‑‑Offence not falling within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.‑‑Bail granted. Sh. Asghar Ali for the State.
Judgment & Decree
G.H. Khan for Petitioner. Sh. Asghar Ali for the State. This is a petition for bail on behalf of Anwar Ali petitioner/accused in a case under Section 14 of Ordinance VI of 1979.
2. The case was registered on the report of Abbas Ali, brother‑in‑law of the petitioner, wherein he alleged that the petitioner stayed at his house and during his absence took away Rs. 40,000 in cash, ornaments and a lady wrist watch. During the investigation some ornaments and wrist watch were recovered from him which were taken into possession vide memo dated 24‑10 1988.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to family dispute and in any case the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.
4. I have considered the submission made at the Bar in the light of material available on the record. The petitioner was arrested on 23‑10‑1988. He is in jail for the last about six months. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. 1, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Mianwali. M.Y.H./A‑677/L Bail granted.