PCRLJ 2004

2004 P Cr (PLP)

FAISAL MUHAMMAD HASSAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
2003-September-26
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2004 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members N/A
Parties FAISAL MUHAMMAD HASSAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?

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: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (FAISAL MUHAMMAD HASSAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Fida Gul for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.170/171/419/420/468/471-- Bail, grant of

Accused were in jail since their arrest and were no more required for the purpose of investigation

Charges against accused did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and withholding of bail as a measure of advance punishment, would neither promote the cause of justice nor object of law

Element of fraud or dishonesty on the part of accused was yet to be determined during the trial

Investigation of the case was complete and challan of the case was likely to be put into the Court shortly

Conclusion of trial of accused would take some time

Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

Bail Application No.967 of 2003, decided on 26th September, 2003.

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.170/171/419/420/468/471-- Bail, grant of

Accused were in jail since their arrest and were no more required for the purpose of investigation

Charges against accused did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and withholding of bail as a measure of advance punishment, would neither promote the cause of justice nor object of law

Element of fraud or dishonesty on the part of accused was yet to be determined during the trial

Investigation of the case was complete and challan of the case was likely to be put into the Court shortly

Conclusion of trial of accused would take some time

Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances. Badrey and 3 others v. The State and another 2000 PCr.LJ 1914 and Abdul Qadir v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 582ref. Fida Gul for Petitioners. Miss Naleem Khan for the State. Date of hearing; 26th September, 2003.