2002 PLP 3662 (YLR)
SAJJID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 3662 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Shaikh Abdur Razzaq, J |
| Parties | SAJJID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3662 (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 2002 PLP 3662 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shaikh Abdur Razzaq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3662 (YLR) (SAJJID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Muhammad Naveed Akhtar and Rana Jehanzeb Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380/411/457‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑None of the accused persons was nominated in F.I.R.‑‑ Accused who were arrested, were alleged to have led to the recovery of watches allegedly stolen by them‑‑‑Case against accused at the most fell under S.
411. P. P. C. which did not fall within prohibition clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Co‑accused who led to the recovery of watches, had already been extended relief of bail‑‑‑Accused even on that score were entitled to same treatment as was meted gut to their co‑accused‑‑‑Accused were admitted to bail in circumstances. Sh. Muhammad‑ Raheem and Muhammad Anwar‑ul‑Haq for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Muhammad‑ Raheem and Muhammad Anwar‑ul‑Haq for the State. Petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.50 of 2000 dated 6‑2‑2000 under sections 457/380/411, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Multan Cantt. Multan.
2. Alongwith this petition, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1492‑B of 2000 has been filed by Abdul Hameed. Since both the petitions arise out of the same F.I.R., so these are being disposed of by the single order.
3. Briefly stated the allegation against the present petitioners is that they had committed theft in the shop of complainant and had deprived him of watches, calculators, sunglasses and other articles lying in his shop.
4. The petitioner applied for bail which relief has been declined to them by the Courts below. Hence the instance petitions.
5. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 20 watches of Zeenat make are stated to have been Sajjid petitioner whereas 94 watches have beer recovered from Abdul Hameed petitioner, that Ghulam Jaffar, a. co‑accused of the present petitioners has been released on bail who had led to the watches, vide order dated 10‑5‑2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, that case of the petitioners is on better footing than that of Ghulam Jaffar, as such they are entitled to the same relief, relying upon the principle of consistency.
6. Conversely, petitions have been opposed by the learned counsel for the State.
7. It is evident from the contents of F.I.R. that none of the present petitioners is a nominated accused in the said F.I.R. They were arrested on 8‑5‑2000 and are said to have led to the recovery of watches as mentioned above. Thus at the most case against the petitioners falls under section 411, P.P.C. which does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The co‑accused Ghulam Jaffar who led to the recovery of 210 watches has already been extended the relief of bail. Even on this score the petitioners are entitled to the same treatment as meted out to their co‑accused.
8. In the light of facts stated above, the petitions are accepted and they are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each, with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./S‑509/L Bail granted.