2004 PLP 19 (YLR)
IMTIAZ ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 19 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | IMTIAZ ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 19 (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 2004 PLP 19 (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: 2004 PLP 19 (YLR) (IMTIAZ ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chowhan for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 8th July, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420/471‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑None of the offences alleged against accused fell within the ambit of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Recovery, had been effected and accused had been sent to judicial lock‑up as he was no more required by police for further investigation‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Tariq for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420/471‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑None of the offences alleged against accused fell within the ambit of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Recovery, had been effected and accused had been sent to judicial lock‑up as he was no more required by police for further investigation‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Zafar Iqbal Chowhan for Petitioners. Muhammad Tariq for the State. Date of hearing: 8th July, 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ijaz Ali is real brother of Imtiaz Ali, he was not named in the F.I.R., he was implicated later on by the complainant; that offences under sections 420/471, P.P.C. are bailable while offence under section 468, P.P.C. is not made out because no forgery has been committed, that petitioners have been sent to judicial lock‑up, no more required by the police and that none of the offence falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that recovery has been effected, challan has been submitted and bail should not be granted.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. None of the offences falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., recovery has been effected, petitioners have been sent to judicial lock up, no more required by the police for further investigation, therefore, this petition is accepted. Petitioners are allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 (Fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. H.B.T./I‑230/L Bail granted.