YLR 2002

2002 PLP 3687 (YLR)

SAIFAL alias BILLA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1534‑B of 2000, decided on 27th July, 2000.
Honorable Judges
Sheikh Abdur Razzaq, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 3687 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Sheikh Abdur Razzaq, J
Parties SAIFAL alias BILLA‑‑‑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 2002 PLP 3687 (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 2002 PLP 3687 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sheikh Abdur Razzaq, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3687 (YLR) (SAIFAL alias BILLA‑‑‑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

  • Rana Jahanzaib Khan for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑Ss.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.399/402‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Complainant had contended that accused alongwith other persons were found preparing for commission of some offence‑‑‑Even if contentions of complainant were accepted as correct, offence under Ss. 399/402, P.P.C. was not made out‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Maqbool Ahmad Bhatti for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Rana Jahanzaib Khan for Petitioner. Maqbool Ahmad Bhatti for the State. The petitioner seeks postarrest bail in case F.I.R. No.31 dated 14‑2‑2000 under sections 402/399, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Dehli Gate, Multan.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith other persons were found present preparing for the commission of some offence.

3. The petitioner applied for bail which has been declined by the learned Additional, Sessions Judge vide order dated 13‑6‑2000. Hence the instant petition.

4. Arguments lave been heard and record perused.

5. Even if the contentions of the complainant are accepted as correct the offence under sections 399/402, P.P.C. is not made out. Accordingly the petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./S‑508/L Bail granted.