2004 PLP 1961(1) (YLR)
ABID HUSSAIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1961(1) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | ABID HUSSAIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1961(1) (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 2004 PLP 1961(1) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1961(1) (YLR) (ABID HUSSAIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Chaudhary for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 24th July, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.381‑A & 411‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Alleged recovery had taken place‑‑‑Offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr. P. C. ‑‑‑No apprehension was therefor either of absconsion of accused or tampering with prosecution evidence‑‑ Accused was behind the bars for the last 8 months and was previous non‑convict‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Sh. Arshad Ali for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Chaudhary for Petitioner. Sh. Arshad Ali for the State. Date of hearing: 24th July, 2003. Abid Hussain, the petitioner has sought after‑arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No.304, dated 26‑9‑2002 under sec tions 381‑A/411, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Saddar Chichawatni, District Khanewal.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on the preceding night to 26‑9‑2002 about 8‑00 p.m. Motor‑cycle Riksha of the complainant was stolen away by some unknown person from the Petrol Pump at Kamalia Road, Chichawatni.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that the alleged recovery has taken place that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; that there is no apprehension of his absconsion or tampering with prosecution evidence; that he is behind the bars for the last about 8 months; and that he is previous non‑convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has not been able to controvert the above contentions.
5. Hence, the petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A‑86/L Bail granted.