2005 PLP 3319 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD AYUB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 3319 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Akram Baitu, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYUB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 3319 (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 3319 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Akram Baitu, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 3319 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AYUB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saghir Ahmed Bhatti for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 498 & 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365, 452, 380, 148 & 149
Anticipatory ball, confirmation of
Prosecutrix present in Court had stated that she had exonerated accused from crime complained of
Prosecutrix had stated that she had not been abducted by accused nor she had contracted marriage with the complainant
Counsel for accused during course of his arguments had pointed out that a suit for jactitation of marriage had already been decreed in favour of prosecutrix
Sufficient reasons existed to believe that case of accused fell under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr. P. C.
Pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances. Azhar Kamiana for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD AKRAM BAITU, J.
Through this petition, the petitioner has sought for the relief of his anticipatory bail in a case F.I.R. No.304 of 2002 dated 12-10-2002 registered under sections 365/452/148/149/380, P.P.C. at Police Station, Kacha Khuh, District Khanewal on the grounds that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to mala fide of the complainant; that the offences complained are not applicable against the petitioner; that Mst. Gulnaz prosecutrix has exonerated the petitioner from the crime complained. It is lastly contended that the case of petitioner is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, he is entitled for concession of bail.
2. On the contrary the learned State counsel has strongly opposed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that specific part of violence has been attributed to the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for extraordinary concession of bail.
3. Heard both the parties. Record perused.
4. From the perusal of statement of Mst. Gulnaz prosecutrix who is also present in Court, it is obvious that she has exonerated the petitioner from the crime complained. She states that she has not been abducted by the petitioner nor she has contracted marriage with the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments pointed out that a suit for jactitation of marriage has already been decreed in favour of the prosecutrix. In view of the above discussion there are sufficient reasons to believe that the case of the petitioner falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, the instant petition is allowed and the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15-1-2004 by this Court is hereby confirmed. H.B.T./M-1309/L Bail confirmed.