1988 PLP 518 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 518 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 518 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 518 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 518 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Jamaluddin for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Case of petitioner at par with that of co‑accused already enlarged on bail‑‑Petitioner also allowed bail in circumstances. Sardar Muhammad Khurshid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No. 177 dated 30‑7‑1987 registered at Police Station `D' Type Colony, District Faisalabad.
2. According to F.I.R. a person whose name later was known to be Muhammad Tufail, had purchased three bottles of Teem (aerated water) from the complainant and thereafter had handed over two of the bottles to Liaquat truck driver and Irshad conductor for drinking. The truck driver and the conductor fell unconscious after drinking the bottles. In the meantime the complainant had felt suspicion and followed the said Muhammad Tufail, where he had seen two small pieces of. paper lying. Another person accompanying Muhammad Tufail was later known to be Muhammad Yasin. Both of the them succeeded in running away. On the arrest of Muhammad Tufail and Muhammad Yasin it transpired that Muhammd Tufail in fact was Muhammad Anwar while Muhammad Yasin in fact was Muhammad Ismail, the petitioner. It was found that the petitioner and his co‑accused had put some intoxicant material in the bottles which were given for drinking to the truck driver and the conductor.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has been involved falsely in this case; that he is in jail for the last more than ten months and that his co‑accused has already been released on bail vide order dated 18‑4‑1988 and the case of the petitioner is at par with that of his co‑accused.
4. Learned counsel for the State has not opposed the grant of bail on account of the fact that case of the petitioner is at par with that of his co‑accused who has already been enlarged on bail.
5. I have gone through the F.I.R., the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. and the result of investigation. The case of the petitioner appears to be at par with that of his co‑accused Muhammad Anwar who has already been allowed bail, by A this Court. The petitioner is also allowed bail following the rule of consistency. He shall be released on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. Twenty thousand with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad/trial Magistrate. S.G.D./M‑875/L Bail granted.