2004 PLP 1415 (MLD)
SHAFQAT and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1415 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rustam Ali Malik, J |
| Parties | SHAFQAT and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1415 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1415 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rustam Ali Malik, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1415 (MLD) (SHAFQAT and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Justin Gill for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.498‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.379‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, grant of‑‑‑Investigating Officer present in Court had admitted that accused had already joined investigation and that alleged stolen tree had been recovered from the place of occurrence‑‑‑Place of occurrence was owned by complainant, but it was under the graveyard‑‑‑Tree in question was stated to have been found from the spot and not from the possession of accused‑‑‑Accused had joined investigation and nothing else was to be recovered from them‑‑‑Accused, in circumstances were entitled to concession of bail. Syed Fazal Hussain Jafri for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioners seek pre‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.48 of 2004 registered on 6‑2‑2004 in Police Station Raiwind Saddar, Kasur under section 379, P.P.C.
2. The F. I. R. was lodged by Ashiq Ali complainant alleging that the accused had cut a tree from his land and had committed theft of the same. On the night of 2‑2‑2004, at 11/12 mid‑night, when he admonished the said accused persons, they hurled abuses on him and rushed towards him with hatchets in their hands in order to kill him.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. At the time of arguments on this petition, the S.I./Investigating Officer present in the Court admitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and that the alleged stolen tree had been recovered from the place of occurrence. He has submitted that the place of occurrence was owned by the complainant but it was under the graveyard. In any away, the tree in question is stated to have been found from the spot and not from the possession of the petitioners. It has been admitted that the petitioners have joined the investigation and that nothing else is now to be recovered from them. The learned counsel for the petitioners has asserted that the petitioners were involved in this case with a mala fide intention and with ulterior motives.
5. Under the circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail. Therefore, this bail application is accepted and the interim pre‑arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000, with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within seven days. H.B.T./S‑132/L Bail granted.