2007 PLP 2937 (YLR)
KHURRUM SHAHZAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2937 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J |
| Parties | KHURRUM SHAHZAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2937 (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 2007 PLP 2937 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2937 (YLR) (KHURRUM SHAHZAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Shoaib Khokhar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 34 & 109
Co-accused had already been admitted to post arrest bail and case against accused was not dissimilar to or distinguishable from the case against said co-accused
No reason was shown as to why accused could not be treated in the matter of bail in the same manner as said co-accused
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Miss Ezat Nageen for the State with Muhammad Ashraf, A.S.I, with record.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--Through this petition Khurum Shahzad petitioner has sought post-arrest bail incase F.I.R. No.203 registered at Police Station (A) Division, Sheikhupura on 17-3-2006 in respect of offences under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it-has straightaway been noticed by me that a co-accused of the petitioner namely Asim alias Chhura has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 20-102006 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.8360-B of 2006. It is not disputed that the case against the present petitioner is not dissimilar to or distinguishable from the case against the said co-accused. There is, thus, no reason why the present petitioner may not be treated in the matter of bail in the same manner as the said co-accused. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is submitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T/K-30/L Bail granted.