1989 PLP 4650 (MLD)
RAHMAT ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4650 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | RAHMAT ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4650 (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 1989 PLP 4650 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4650 (MLD) (RAHMAT ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Aslam Khan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395, 397, 506, 148 & 149‑‑Bail grant of‑‑ Names of accused were not mentioned in F.I.R.‑‑No test identification parade was held‑‑Subsequent occurrence could not be tried jointly with the occurrence mentioned in F.I.R.‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Muhammad Akhtar Lodhi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Aslam Khan for Petitioners. Muhammad Akhtar Lodhi for the State. This is an application for grant of bail to Rehmat Ali and Ashiq petitioners in case under sections 395, 397, 506, 148 and 149 P.P.C. registered at Police; Station Abbasnagar vide F.I.R No.131/88.
2. According to the prosecution six unidentified persons had robbed Abdul Khaliq of Rs.5,000 on 24‑11‑1988 in Chak No‑31 of Police Station Abbasnagar.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the names of the petitioners are not mentioned in the F.I.R. that no parade for their identification was held and that the petitioners cannot be tried in this case for another robbery in which Muhammad Sadiq was looted on the same night. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the Petitioners. I find that the names of the petitioners are not mentioned in the petitioners F.I.R. that no parade for their identification was held; and that the subsequent occurrence in which Muhammad Sadiq was robbed cannot be tried jointly with the occurrence mentioned in F.I.R No.131/88.
5. For what has been said above, without making expression of opinion lest it may prejudice the merits, of the case. I feel that a case for grant of bail to the petitioners has been made out. They will, therefore, be released on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees Thirty thousand only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar of this Court. S.A./R‑178/L Bail granted.