MLD 2002

2002 PLP 1232 (MLD)

BASHARAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.341/B of 2002, decided on 11th January, 2002.
Honorable Judges
Zafar Pasha Chaudhary, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 1232 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Zafar Pasha Chaudhary, J
Parties BASHARAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1232 (MLD)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1232 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zafar Pasha Chaudhary, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1232 (MLD) (BASHARAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Ch. Ahmad Saif Ullah for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 107/108‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑ Lalkara‑‑‑Allegation against accused was that he had raised Lalkara‑‑‑ Question whether LAlkara was in the nature of command or only a proverbial one was open to farther enquiry‑‑‑Accused had no motive whatsoever to commit crime but same squarely lay against co‑accused who was in custody‑‑‑Accused at worst, could be held for his vicarious liability which would be determined at trial‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Kazim Iqbal for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Allegation against the petitioner is that of raising lalkara. The question whether Lalkara was in nature of command or only a proverbial one, is open to further enquiry. Further that petitioner has no motive whatsoever to commit crime. The motive squarely lies against the co‑ A accused who is in the custody. The petitioner at the best can be held for his vicarious liability which would be determined at the trial. He is, therefore, admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./B‑81/L Bail granted.