2009 PLP 2285 (YLR)
TARIQ MAQSOOD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 2285 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Saghir Ahmad, J |
| Parties | TARIQ MAQSOOD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2285 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 2285 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Saghir Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2285 (YLR) (TARIQ MAQSOOD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392/458/411
Accused was not nominated in the F.I.R.
Accused was behind the bars since 27-11-2006 without there being any progress in the trial
F.I.R., showed that accused was armed with fire-arm, but during investigation no such weapon had been recovered from accused
Nothing was to be recovered from accused after conclusion of investigation when the trial had commenced
Further incarceration of accused without any progress in the trial would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Younas Sheikh for the Complainant. Ch. Zulfiqar Ali Sindh, Addl. P.-G. with Muhammad Bakhsh, S.I.
Judgment & Decree
SAGHIR AHMAD, J.
Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.54/05 dated 13-2-2005 under sections 392/458/411, P.P.C. P.S. Gaggo District Vehari.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is not named in the F.I.R; that although in the F.I.R. he was alleged to be armed with fire-arm yet during investigation no such weapon was recovered from him, as such he has "become entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Admittedly the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. The petitioner is behind the bars since 27-11-2006 without there being any progress in the trial; that according to the F.I.R. the petitioner was shown to be armed with fire-arm but during investigation no such weapon has been recovered from the petitioner. In this view of the matter after conclusion of investigation when the trial has commenced, nothing is to be recovered from him, further incarceration of the petitioner without any progress in the trial would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution. Resultantly this bail application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judl) of this Bench. H.B.T./T-37/L Bail granted.