1992 PLP 1873 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD NASEEM alias SEEMA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1873 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Muhammad Zubair, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NASEEM alias SEEMA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1873 (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 1992 PLP 1873 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Muhammad Zubair, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1873 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD NASEEM alias SEEMA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Zia Ullah for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Railways Act (IX of 1890), S.121/128‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.379‑‑‑Bail, grant of ‑‑‑In the absence of the name of accused in the F.I.R. case against him was of further inquiry ‑‑‑Accused's case apparently fell under S.121 and not under S.128, Railways Act, 1890‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Sardar Khurshid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Zia Ullah for Petitioner. Sardar Khurshid for the State. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1992. The petitioner who is involved in a case under sections 121 and 128 of the Railways Act, 1890 and section 379, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.9, dated 13‑1‑1992, registered at Police Post Shahdara Railay Police, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R. though it was lodged after two days with great deliberation and speculation. He further contended that the sentence at the most in this case is not more than two years and the offences under sections 121 and 128 of the Railways Act are not attracted to the facts of this case, as no danger was caused to the rolling stock; hence the bail refusing order is erroneous in law, as the learned Judge did not keep in view the important ingredient of the offence. In the end, he submitted that at the most the case falls under section 121 of the Railways Act, which is only punishable with fine, and the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars by way of punishment without any progress in the trial, especially in the case when the sentence does not entail death or imprisonment for life.
3. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the police officer, has opposed this bail application.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. I find substantial force in the submission of the learned counsel that in the absence of the name of the petitioner in the F.I.R., the case against him is one of further inquiry, as it would be determined after the recording of some evidence whether the petitioner actually took part in the crime or not. In addition to that, a bare reading of section 121 of the Railways Act shows that on the facts of the present case, appropriate section applicable is section 121 and not section 128 of the Railways Act. In this view of the matter, case for the grant of bail is made out. Accordingly I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑345/L Bail allowed.