1985 P Cr (PLP)
AKBAR KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | AKBAR KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (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 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (AKBAR KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naveed Shahryar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497/498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 419/420/467/468/469/470‑ --Bail, grant of‑‑Accused subscribed as witness to a mutation, which was found to be forged‑‑Report of Finger Print Expert not filed in Court even after twenty months of registration of case to show that thumb‑impression of accused does appear on mutation‑‑All other co‑accused already released on bail‑‑Accused, held, was entitled to be released on bail in circumstances. Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497/498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 419/420/467/468/469/470‑ --Bail, grant of‑‑Accused subscribed as witness to a mutation, which was found to be forged‑‑Report of Finger Print Expert not filed in Court even after twenty months of registration of case to show that thumb‑impression of accused does appear on mutation‑‑All other co‑accused already released on bail‑‑Accused, held, was entitled to be released on bail in circumstances. Naveed Shahryar for Petitioner. Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for the State. This is a petition under section 497/498, Cr. P. C. by Akbar Khan, petitioner for bail in respect of a case instituted against him and a number of others under section 420/4671468/419/469/470, P.P.C. at Police Station Bhagtanwala on 27‑9‑1983. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that Akbar Khan, petitioner, subscribed his signature as a witness to a mutation, by which the lands of one Mst. Mumtaz Begum were transferred in favour of Lal and Shashu, co‑accused. It is alleged that the said mutation was found to be forged and that Mst. Mumtaz Begum, the alleged owner, had not subscribed to the same. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Akbar Khan, petitioner, who absconded in the case for quite some time, has now been arrested. Bail was refused to him on the ground that he had absconded. Strangely, even till now the report of the Finger Print Expert has not been filed in Court to show that the thumb‑impression of the petitioner does appear on the mutation. Be that as it may, all the other co‑accused have been released on bail. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and Akbar Khan, petitioner, is released on bail, subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rupees thirty thousand (Rs.30,000) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. S.A. Petition accepted