2006 PLP 961 (MLD)
QASIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 961 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | QASIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 961 (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 2006 PLP 961 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 961 (MLD) (QASIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497 & 498
Bail, before arrest and after arrest
Interim bail before arrest was allowed to accused whereby he was directed to appear before High Court on each and every date of hearing, and also to join investigation
Petitioners' counsel was also directed to place on record copy of application submitted to S.H.O. concerned
Accused was named in F.I.R. and recovery was yet to be effected from him
Even otherwise, ingredients of bail before arrest were absent in the case
Considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and bail after arrest being altogether different, petition for was dismissed
Accused was directed to join investigation and his counsel was directed to place on record copy of application submitted to S.H.O. concerned.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.
Case has repeatedly been called. Neither the petitioner nor his learned counsel are present. It is a bail before after arrest petition. Interim bail before arrest was allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 2-5-2005, whereby he was directed to appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing, shall join the investigation and his learned counsel was directed to place on record copy of application submitted to S.H.O., R.A. Bazar, Lahore. I find that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and recovery is yet to be affected from him. Even otherwise, ingredients of the bail before arrest are absent in the present case. Considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and bail after arrest are altogether different. This petition is dismissed. A copy of this order, along with the relevant documents, shall be sent to learned trial Court to proceed against the sureties under section 514, Cr.P.C. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of one month under intimation to the Deputy Register (Judicial) of this Court for information of this Bench.
2. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioner has not complied with the order of this Court whereby he was directed to appear before this Court on each and very date of hearing, was directed to join the investigation and his learned counsel was directed to place on record copy of application submitted to S.H.O., R.A. Bazar, Lahore. Let a notice under the contempt of Court Act be issued against him for wilful disobedience of the above directions of this Court. Non-bailable warrants of arrest shall also be issued against him. The A.S.-I. present in Court shall effect service of the warrants of arrest and shall produce him before this Court on 19-5-2005. A separate file shall be constructed in this regard. H.B.T./Q-1/L Order accordingl