2008 PLP 251 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 251 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 251 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 251 (MLD)?
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: 2008 PLP 251 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Faiz-ul-Hassan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.379
No recovery had been effected from the possession of accused to connect him with the offence
Accused was not previous convict and was not involved in any case of cattle theft
Offence against accused did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Maximum punishment of offence alleged against accused was only three years
Bail, in such like cases was a rule and refusal was an exception
Accused, who was behind the bars, was no more required for further investigation and to keep him there for an indefinite period, would not serve any beneficial purpose
Judgment & Decree
SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.
Petitioner Muhammad Sharif through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 492 of 2005, dated 26-11-2005 under section 379, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Mochiwala, District Jhang.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had stolen a buffalo and two goats of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been implicated in this case with mala fide intention of the complainant and in connivance with the local police; there is a delay of more than four months in lodging the F.I.R. no criminating material is available on the record; the petitioner has been involved in this case only on the basis of suspicion; the offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause and the petitioner is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the instant petition.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 21-1-2006. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner's possession to connect him with the offence. The petitioner is previous non-convict and not involved in any case of cattle theft. The offence does not fall under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The maximum punishment of the offence alleged against the petitioner is only three years. In such-like cases bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. He is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation and to keep him behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any beneficial purpose.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-583/L Bail granted.