1987 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 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 1987 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: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sarfraz Hussain Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406, 409 &420‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Accused in jail for more than one year‑ ‑Co‑accused already on bail‑ Bail allowed in circumstances. Malik Muhammad Yusuf for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406, 409 &420‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Accused in jail for more than one year‑ ‑Co‑accused already on bail‑ Bail allowed in circumstances. Sarfraz Hussain Malik for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Yusuf for the State. This is a petition for bail on behalf of Muhammad Arif petitioner who alongwith others is involved in a case under sections 406, 409 and 420, P.P.C.
2. Bail is claimed on the grounds that section 409, P.P.C. is not attracted in the case of the petitioner; the offence under section 406, P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause and section 420, P.P.C. is bailable. It is further submitted that two co‑ accused of the petitioner who allegedly played the major role, have since been released on bail and the petitioner is in jail for a continuous period of more than one year but his trial has not commenced so far. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer, for bail. He, however, concedes that the co‑accused of the petitioner have already been admitted to bail and the petitioner is in the jail for the last more than one year.
2. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The allegation against the petitioner was that he deprived Nazir Ahmad, son of Muhammad Shafi complainant, of Rs.7,000 and a watch. In the order of the learned Special Judge (C), dated 11‑10‑1986, it is stated that the petitioner is in the judicial lock‑up for a period of more than one year as he was arrested on 18‑9‑1985. It is admitted that the co accused of the petitioner have already been admitted to bail. In the circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. S.A./M‑63/L Bail allowed.