2005 PLP 842 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD DAWOOD and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 842 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Bashir A. Mujahid, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD DAWOOD and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 842 (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 2005 PLP 842 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Bashir A. Mujahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 842 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD DAWOOD and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Amir Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
- Azam Nazeer Tarar for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 7th July, 2004.
- The petitioner has been opposed by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 who by placing reliance on 1986 SCMR 1386 and .1991 MLD 579 has argued that principle for cancellation and for grant of bail are entirely different. Respondent No. 1 had no blood relation with the main accused, therefore, there was no occasion to raise Lalkara and the respondent was rightly allowed pre‑arrest bail.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.497(5) & 498‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/109/34‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused having no blood relation with main accused, there was no occasion in circumstances, to raise alleged Lalkara by him‑‑‑Whether Lalkara attributed to accused was commanding in nature or proverbial, was to be seen by Trial Court after recording of evidence‑‑‑No allegation of misusing of concession of bail was found against the accused‑‑‑No ground for cancellation of bail having been made out, petition for cancellation of bail, was dismissed. PLD 1984 SC 192; NLR 1995 277; 1986 SCMR 1386 and 1991 MLD 579 ref. Anwar Islam Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Amir Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Azam Nazeer Tarar for Respondent No.
1. Anwar Islam Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 7th July, 2004. The petitioner is complainant of case F.I.R. No. 27, dated 4‑5‑2004, under sections 324/109/34, P.P.C. registered at P. S. Nowshera, Khushab, and seeks cancellation of pre‑arrest bail granted to respondent Muhammad Dawood by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab vide order, dated 10‑6‑2004. The allegation against the respondent is that he raised Lalkara while his co‑accused Afzaal who is still at large caused successive fires on vital parts of Salah Muhammad brother of the complainant and the respondent was not entitled for grant pre‑arrest bail, therefore it has been prayed that concession of pre- arrest bail granted to the respondent be withdrawn. In support of his contentions the learned counsel has placed reliance on PLD 1984 SC 192 and NLR 1995
277. The petitioner has been opposed by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 who by placing reliance on 1986 SCMR 1386 and .1991 MLD 579 has argued that principle for cancellation and for grant of bail are entirely different. Respondent No. 1 had no blood relation with the main accused, therefore, there was no occasion to raise Lalkara and the respondent was rightly allowed pre‑arrest bail. Learned counsel for the State has supported learned counsel for the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the accused has no blood relation with his co‑accused, whether Lalkara attributed to the respondent was commanding in nature or proverbial, is to be seen by the Trial Court after recording of evidence. There is no allegation of misusing of concession of bail, therefore, no ground for cancellation of bail is made out. The petition stands dismissed. H.B.T./M‑658/L Petition dismissed.