2005 PLP 1981 (YLR)
TAHIR RASHEED alias JAVED AHMED alias BILLA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1981 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J |
| Parties | TAHIR RASHEED alias JAVED AHMED alias BILLA — 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 1981 (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 1981 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1981 (YLR) (TAHIR RASHEED alias JAVED AHMED alias BILLA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 411, 468 & 471
Only allegation against accused was that motorcycle was recovered from his possession, but no evidence was available against him for preparation of forged document
Offence under S.411, P.P.C. fell outside prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Keeping accused in jail for an indefinite period would not serve or advance prosecution case
Bail was allowed to accused, in circumstances. Badar Munir Malik, with Muhammad Khalid, A.S-I. with Record.
Judgment & Decree
Through this application the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.421, dated 13-8-2004 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 411 P.P.C. at Police Station, Batala Colony, District, Faisalabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no evidence against the petitioner for preparation of forged document; that from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. no offence under section 420, P.P.C. is made out and that offences under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. are non-cognizable and that the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail. He contends that the petitioner has committed heinous offence.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The only allegation against the petitioner is that motorcycle was recovered from his possession but there is no evidence against the petitioner for preparation of forged documents. The offence under section 411 falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Keeping the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period of time will not serve or advance the prosecution case.
6. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./T-83/L Bail granted.