2004 P Cr (PLP)
SABIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SABIR HUSSAIN — 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) (SABIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dilshad Ali Khan Nadeem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392
Accused ' was 'confined in judicial lock-up for more than one year even after completion of investigation
No recovery was -effected from the accused
Nothing was on record to show that accused was previously involved in any criminal activity
Judgment & Decree
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392
Accused ' was 'confined in judicial lock-up for more than one year even after completion of investigation
No recovery was -effected from the accused
Nothing was on record to show that accused was previously involved in any criminal activity
Not a single witness had been examined by trial Court
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Dilshad Ali Khan Nadeem for Petitioner. Muhammad Nadeem Asif for the State. Date of hearing: 26th June, 2003. Sabir Hussain son of Muhammad Ismail-petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.144 registered at Police Station Pacca Laran, on 26-5-2002, for offence under section 392, P.P.C.
2. Briefly, the allegation against the petitioner is that he while armed with .12 bore pistol alongwith other co-accused snatched the motorcycle from the complainant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. It has been noticed that the petitioner was arrested on 21-6-2003, more than a year ago, and was lodged in the judicial lock-up after completion of investigation; that no recovery was effected from the petitioner; that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was previously involved in any criminal activities; and that so far not a single witness has been recorded by the learned trial Court. Considering all the facts mentioned above, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs.one lac, with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./S-790/L Bail granted.