1981 P Cr (PLP)
FATEH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1981 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 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 1981 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 P Cr (PLP) (FATEH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Khokhar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Petitioner, member of an unlawful assembly resorting to firing, attacking Management Staff, damaged main once of factory besides committing offences of arson and looting
Petitioner apprehended at spot while hurling brick bats on police-Mere fact petitioner being not mentioned in F. I. R., held, not a sufficient ground for grant of bail, to circumstances-Bail declined. C. M. Latif Rawn for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 497
Petitioner, member of an unlawful assembly resorting to firing, attacking Management Staff, damaged main once of factory besides committing offences of arson and looting
Petitioner apprehended at spot while hurling brick bats on police-Mere fact petitioner being not mentioned in F. I. R., held, not a sufficient ground for grant of bail, to circumstances-Bail declined. Muhammad Akram Khokhar for Petitioner. C. M. Latif Rawn for the State. Fateh Muhammad petitioner who along with others is involved in a case under sections 148, 307, 382, 506, 436, 332 and 352/149, P. P. C., has moved this petition for bail. The allegations are that on 14thFebruary, 1981 about one thousand labourers while being members of unlawful assembly resorted to firing, attacked the Management Staff of Service Industry, committed theft of cloth worth Rs. 1,500, burnt three cars and damaged the main office of the Factory.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not an employee of the factory and he is not named in the F. I. R. therefore he is entitled to the concession of bail.
3. I have gone through the relevant material. The petitioner was apprehended at the spot while hurling brick bats on the police. The there fact that he is not named in the F. I. R. is not a sufficient ground for the grant of bail because the number of persons who resorted to violence was over a thousand and it was not possible to name each and every one of them in the F. I. R. The allegations are of serious nature. I am, therefore, not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail at this stage, The petition is dismissed. Bail refused.