2002 PLP 1424 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1424 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1424 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1424 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1424 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazar Abbas Syed for Petitioners
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 382/411‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Delay of eight days in lodging F.I.R.‑‑‑Prosecution story itself showed that the tractors in question were purchased on instalments and there was dispute regarding payment of those instalments and matter was referred to Panchayat even prior to the registration of case‑‑‑Seven out of nine accused persons had been declared innocent during investigation‑‑ Accused who were in judicial lock‑up were admitted to bail. Ch. Muhammad Mustafa for the State
Judgment & Decree
Petitioners seek bail in a case registered vide F. I. R. No. 117, dated 4‑7‑2001 under sections 382/411, P.P.C. Police Station Bharana, District Jhang wherein it is alleged that on the fateful day and time nine persons named in the F.I.R., including the petitioners came to the place where the complainant was ploughing his fields. They snatched tractors bearing Nos.JGB 528 and VR 4622 owned by the complainant and his cousin Muhammad Ihsan which they had purchased on instalments a few months prior to the registration of this case. It was further alleged that the complainant made efforts to have the tractors retrieved through Punchayat but it was of no avail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case registered is false, that as a matter of fact the complainant and his cousin, who had purchased tractors, were not .giving their instalments on account of which a dispute arose and the petitioners got the tractors back through intervention of the respectables; that after the registration of the case, an Iqrar Nama was executed which is duly signed by the complainant and it reflects that the instant case is primarily a civil dispute and no mens rea is indicated. Further submits that seven out of nine accused have been declared innocent during investigation.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposed the petition but could not deny that the background of the case is primarily a civil dispute.
4. Heard
5. There is a delay of eight days in lodging the F. I. R. According to the prosecution story itself, the tractors in question were purchased on instalments and there was dispute regarding outstanding payment of those instalments and the matter was referred to the Punchayat even prior to the registration of the case: Admittedly, seven out of nine accused persons, have been declared innocent during the investigation. Petitioners are in judicial lock‑up. In the afore‑referred circumstances, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate section 30 concerned. H.B.T./M‑1135/L Bail granted.