1995 P Cr (PLP)
WALAYAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ahmad Saeed A wan, J |
| Parties | WALAYAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ahmad Saeed A wan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (WALAYAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Shahid Nisar Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.380‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused was a hardened criminal and was involved in as many as ten cases of theft‑‑‑Allowing bail to accused on technical ground could amount to giving premium to a person who was a history‑sheeter‑‑‑Bail was refused to accused accordingly. Badar Munir Malik for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.380‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused was a hardened criminal and was involved in as many as ten cases of theft‑‑‑Allowing bail to accused on technical ground could amount to giving premium to a person who was a history‑sheeter‑‑‑Bail was refused to accused accordingly. Muhammad Shahid Nisar Khan for Petitioner. Badar Munir Malik for the State. The petitioner is accused in case F.I.R. No.54, dated 30‑3‑1994 under section 380, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Satghara, District Okara.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no recovery has been affected from the petitioner as such the case is false; there is no eye‑witness of the occurrence and that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last eight months. On the basis of above submission, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
2. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition. It has, however, been conceded that no recovery has been affected from the petitioner. It was next contended that co‑accused of the petitioner is proclaimed offender and that the petitioner is involved in many theft cases.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner. He is a hardened criminal and is involved in as many as ten cases of theft. Allowing of bail on technical ground would amount to giving premium to the accused who is history sheeter. Dismissed. N.H.Q./W‑66/L Bail refused.