2005 PLP 1532 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE alias SADOO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1532 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE alias SADOO — 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 1532 (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 2005 PLP 1532 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1532 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE alias SADOO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imran Asmat for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-A(i), 337-L(2), 148 & 149
Accused was behind the bars since his arrest
General allegation was levelled against accused and no specific role had been assigned to him to have caused injuries to any person
Mere absconding of accused would not deprive him from concession of bail particularly when he was behind the bars for the last one year and there was no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.184 dated 13-3-2002 registered under sections 324/148/149/337-A(i)/L(ii), P.PC. with Police Station Phoolnagar District Kasur on the ground that no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner except general allegation and that he is behind the bars since 2-2-2005. Investigation qua him is complete and his person in no longer required for the purposes of investigation.
2. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner remained absconder, hence is not entitled to the concession of bail.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 2-2-2004 and is behind the bars since then. There is a general allegation against the petitioner accused. No specific role has been assigned to have caused injuries to any person. Mere abscondance will not deprive him from the concession of bail particularly when he is behind the bars for the last one year and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in the near future.
5. For what has been discussed above, this petition allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-1117/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.