2004 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM AKBAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM AKBAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM AKBAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khan Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code_(XLV of 1860), S.401
Offence complained against accused did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Alleged recovery had already been effected and accused was no more required by police for further investigation
Accused was not a previous convict
Further detention of accused in judicial lock-up would not serve any useful purpose
Judgment & Decree
Khan Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai for Petitioner Syed Altaf Hussain Bokhari for the State. Date of hearing: 8th September, 2003. The petitioner has applied for his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 14 of 2003, dated 16-1-2003 under section 401, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Chowk Azam, Tehsil and District Layyah on the grounds that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to the mala fide of the complainant; that the offence complained, against the petitioner does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. that the recovery has already been effected; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 16-1-2003 and is no more required for further, investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the petitioner is previous non-convict.
2. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the grounds that the offence complained against the petitioner falls within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and there is material available on the record to connect the petitioner with the crime complained, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail.
4. Heard both sides and record perused.
5. Admittedly the offence complained. Against the petitioner does no fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The alleged recovery has already been effected and the petitioner is behind the bars since 16-1-2003 and is no more required by the police for further investigation. Moreover the petitioner is not a previous convict-
6. In view of the above discussion further detention of the petitioner in judicial lock-up will not serve any useful purpose therefore, the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./G-330/L Bail granted.