2008 P Cr (PLP)
FATEH MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD 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 2008 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 2008 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: 2008 P Cr (PLP) (FATEH MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naseem Ullah Khan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.379, 353, 337-L(iii), 337-A(ii), 411, 147 & 149
Out of eight accused persons, three had been found innocent by the police, two had also been granted bail by the Trial Court
Investigation in the case had already been completed
Allegation against the accused was of theft, whereas allegation against the other accused was of causing injuries with Sota on the complainant, which offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C.
Value of the stolen wood was also not more than Rs.10,000
Accused persons were not required any more for investigation
No useful purpose would be served if bail was refused to accused persons or withheld as a punishment
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.
The learned counsel seeks post-arrest bail of petitioners in F.I.R. No.138 of 2007, dated 24-6-2007 under sections 379, 353, 186, 337-L(iii), 147, 149, P.P.C. read with sections 411, 337-A(ii), P.P.C. registered at Police Station Gunjial, District Khushab.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they stole wood from the forest and when intercepted by the complainant, etc. caused injuries with Sota along with their co-accused.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab. Out of eight accused, three have been found innocent by the police, two co-accused have also been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The investigation in this case has already been completed. The allegation against petitioner No.1 is of theft whereas allegation against petitioner No.2 is of causing injuries with Sota on the complainant, etc. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The value of the stolen wood is also not more than Rs.10,
000. The petitioners are not required anymore for investigation. Therefore, in the above circumstances no useful purpose would be served if the bail is refused to them or withheld as a punishment.
4. In view of the above, this bail application is allowed subject to petitioner's furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court of Area Magistrate. H.B.T./F-8/L Bail granted.