1995 PLP 1538 (MLD)
GUL KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1538 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalid Paul Khawaja, J |
| Parties | GUL KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1538 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1538 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalid Paul Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1538 (MLD) (GUL KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Oureshi for Petitioner. Akhtar Masood for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) .. ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392‑‑Bail, grant of ‑‑‑F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of five days ‑‑‑Co‑accused who had allegedly removed the ornaments of the lady had been declared innocent‑‑‑Accused was in judicial lock‑up for the last more than 3‑1/2 months and he was not required for investigation ‑‑‑Challan had not been submitted in the Court so far and his early trial was not in sight‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) .. ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392‑‑Bail, grant of ‑‑‑F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of five days ‑‑‑Co‑accused who had allegedly removed the ornaments of the lady had been declared innocent‑‑‑Accused was in judicial lock‑up for the last more than 3‑1/2 months and he was not required for investigation ‑‑‑Challan had not been submitted in the Court so far and his early trial was not in sight‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Altaf Ibrahim Oureshi for Petitioner. Akhtar Masood for the State. On 15‑6‑1994 at Police Station, Umar Kot, Rajanpur a case under section 392, P.P.C. was registered against Gul Khan, Imam Bakhsh and Abdullah accused at the instance of Muhammad Iqbal complainant. It was alleged that on 10‑6‑1994 the aforesaid three accused committed robbery whereby the complainant's sister Mst. Dhanno was deprived of gold and silver ornaments of the value of Rs.8,750.
2. Gul Khan accused, petitioner herein, who was arrested on 26‑7‑1994 has applied for his bail.
3. I have heard the parties" learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
4. There is a delay of 5 days in the lodging of the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution has not given any plausible explanation of the said delay which is indicative of the fact that a false story has been concocted. Admittedly Imam Bakhsh accused who allegedly was removing the ornaments of Mst. Dhanno at the time of occurrence has been declared innocent. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that to his extent the case of the prosecution has been found to be false. The petitioner is in the judicial lock‑up since 6‑10‑1994 when his interim bail granted on 25‑8‑1994 was cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur. Admittedly his person is not required for the purpose of investigation which to his extent is complete. The prosecution has not yet been able to submit challan against him in Court although the case ‑was registered about six and a half months back. His early trial is not in sight. In this view of the matter learned counsel for the State does not oppose the bail application, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one the satisfaction of AC/Ilaqa Magistrate, Rajanpur. N.H.Q./G‑267/L Bail granted.