1988 PLP r (PCRLJ)
ABBAS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP r (PCRLJ) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ABBAS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP r (PCRLJ)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP r (PCRLJ)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP r (PCRLJ) (ABBAS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Iqbal Cheema for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.382‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑No evidence to connect accused with commission of main crime of dacoity‑‑Police recovered Rs.1,000 from accused during investigation which were allegedly removed from the house of the complainant‑‑Accused, held, at best was liable for an offence punish able under S.411, P.P,C. which was not covered by prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances. Asif Chughtai for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. Iqbal Cheema for Petitioner. Asif Chughtai for the State. This is an application for grant of bail to Abbas petitioner in case under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and section 382, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Nawankot, Lahore vide F.I.R. No.796 of 1987 dated 24‑10‑1987.
2. The prosecution case is that on the night between 23/24‑10‑1987 six persons carrying fire‑arm weapons committed dacoity into the house of Abdullah Jan Khan complainant and forcibly took away tape‑recorder and Rs.1,000 from his house.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence of participation of the petitioner in the commission of dacoity and the allegation against him is that he was possessing stolen currency notes valuing Rs.1,
000. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application. He however, admitted that there is no evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of the dacoity. He maintained that since stolen currency of 1,000 has been recovered from him, so he does not deserve the concession of bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of main crime; that during the investigation, police has recovered Rs.1.000 from him which were allegedly removed from the house of the complainant and that the offence punishable under section 411, P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause of .section 497, Cr.P.C. For what has been said above, the, petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. (City/Duty Magistrate), Lahore. S.G.D./A‑333/L Bail allowed.