2011 SCMR 1719 (PLP)
KHALID MEHMOOD and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 1719 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Mian Saqib Nisar and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ |
| Parties | KHALID MEHMOOD and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 1719 (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 2011 SCMR 1719 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Mian Saqib Nisar and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 1719 (PLP) (KHALID MEHMOOD and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafique Javed Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners with Petitioners in person.
- Date of hearing: 28th June, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 30-5-2011 of the Lahore High Court. Lahore passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6269-B of 2011).
S. 498
Accused persons did not claim possession of shop/subject matter of F.I.R. and nothing was to be recovered front them
Bail was allowed. Asjad Javed Ghural, Additional P.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
On Court query, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not claim possession of the shop/subject matter of the case, registered vide F.I.R. No.86 of 2011 Police Station Rinala Khurd in which pre-arrest bail is sought and the case has been registered on account of some misunderstanding.
2. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab states that although the allegation of breaking the lock of the shop is admitted but since petitioners do not claim possession, the investigation agency shall proceed accordingly. He does not deny that the petitioners had joined the investigation and nothing is to be recovered from them.
3. In view of the above, as petitioners do not claim possession of the shop/subject matter of the F.I.R. and nothing is to be recovered from them, this petition is converted into appeal and the same is allowed and, resultantly, the petitioners are admitted to bail, subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. M.H./K-6/SC Bail granted.