1998 PLP (1) (MLD)
JAMIL SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP (1) (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JAMIL SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP (1) (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP (1) (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP (1) (MLD) (JAMIL SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Assadullah Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 10/11
Accused had been directly charged in promptly lodged F.I.R., and accused had also made a judicial confession furnishing full accounts of occurrence wherein two other accused were also named from whose possession stolen property was duly recovered
Reasonable grounds existing for believing that accused was connected with offence charged with
Judgment & Decree
THE STATE
Respondent Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14 of 1998, decided on 15th January, 1998.
S. 497
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 10/11
Accused had been directly charged in promptly lodged F.I.R., and accused had also made a judicial confession furnishing full accounts of occurrence wherein two other accused were also named from whose possession stolen property was duly recovered
Reasonable grounds existing for believing that accused was connected with offence charged with
Accused was rightly refused bail in circumstances. Assadullah Khan for Petitioner. There is no need to give brief facts of the case in hand as the same have been given in detail in para. 2 of the impugned order recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nowshera (Mr. Muhammad Bashir Khan) on 15-11-1997. Since the petitioner has been directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R. and has also made a judicial confession furnishing full accounts of the occurrence wherein two other accused were also named i.e., Manawar Kamal and Wajid, from whose possession the stolen property was duly recovered therefore, in the circumstances, I am of the view that reasonable grounds do exist for believing that the petitioner is connected with the offence charged with and that he was rightly refused bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. No ground has been made to show as to why the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge be interfered with. This petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed in limine. A.A./24/P Petition dismissed.