2006 P Cr (PLP)
KABEER AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KABEER AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (KABEER AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassan Akhtar Chaudhry for Petitioners.
- 2. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana submits that the case was registered on 25-8-2005, the petitioners applied for bail before arrest for the first time in January, 2006; that the petitioners have been declared proclaimed offenders and that they are not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Bail before arrest, refusal of
Counsel for accused had submitted that one of prosecution witnesses had exonerated accused through an affidavit
Apart from said witness, there was another eye-witness of the case i.e. a Foot Constable, who had fully implicated the accused
Challan had been submitted after having completed proceedings under Ss.87/88. Cr.P.C.
Pre-arrest bail was moved after about four months of the occurrence
Accused, in circumstances, remained fugitive from law during said period
Considerations for the grant of hail before arrest and bail after arrest were altogether different
Ingredients for the grant of bail before arrest were very much lacking in the present case
Bail petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.
In continuation of my earlier order, dated 28-3-2006, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that P.W. Zubair Anwar has exonerated the petitioners through an affidavit; that he has not come because of illness of his brother; that no case is made out against the petitioners; that their involvement in the case is due to political rivalry because petitioner No. 1's father had contested election for the seat of Nazim and that it is case of bail before arrest.
2. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana submits that the case was registered on 25-8-2005, the petitioners applied for bail before arrest for the first time in January, 2006; that the petitioners have been declared proclaimed offenders and that they are not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record.
4. Perusal of the police file shows that apart from Zubair Anwar and Muhammad Ejaz Tahir P.Ws. there is yet another eye-witness of the case i.e. a foot constable who has fully implicated the present petitioners coupled with the fact that challan under section 173, Cr.P.C. has been submitted after having completed proceedings under sections 87/88 of Cr.P.C., case was registered as far back as on 25-8-2005, pre-arrest bail was moved by the petitioners for the first time on 21-1-2006, so they remained fugitive from law during the said period. Furthermore, it is a bail before arrest and considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and hail after arrest are altogether different coupled with the fact that even otherwise ingredients for the grant of bail before arrest are very much lacking in this case, so, this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./K-52/L Bail refused.