2006 PLP 1116 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1116 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Bashir Ansari, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1116 (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 2006 PLP 1116 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tanvir Bashir Ansari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1116 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ijaz Ahmad Chaddhar for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.448, 380, 148 & 149--.-Bail, refusal of--Complainant admittedly was owner of shop in question from where he was forcibly dispossessed by accused
Accused was nominated in FIR. with a specific, role--Shop of accused according w prosecution had been amalgamated with other shop belonging to co-accused and accused claimed himself to be a tenant under said co-accused, but had not prima facie shown the extent of his lawful tenancy or the extent of his present possession
Accused having failed to make out a case for grant of bail, his bail petition was dismissed. Lived Iqbal for the Complainant. Muhammad Gulfam Arshad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, J.--This is a petition for bail after arrest of the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.310, dated 29-11-2004 registered under sections 448/ 380/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station, Kotwali District, Faisalabad.
2. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner armed with .30 bore pistol along with several co-accused trespassed into the shop/cabin of Abdul Ghafoor complainant and forcibly dispossessed him from the same and also took away goods worth Rs.25,000 as mentioned in the F.I.R. Thereafter the shop/cabin was amalgamated with the other shop of Dr. Dawood co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegation contained in the F.I.R. is false as the petitioner is a bona fide tenant in another shop/cabin belonging to Dr. Dawood co-accused. It is urged that the F.I.R. has been lodged with a delay of 3 years which has gone unexplained on the record. It is further contended that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner is entitled to bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail on the ground that admittedly the complainant is the owner of the shop cabin in question. He was forcibly dispossessed from the same and that in the report of' DCO and DSP City, the petitioner and the other co-accused have been found prima facie guilty of the offence. It is further submitted that it was with great effort that the complainant was able to register the F.I.R. despite various attempts. The local police did not register the F.I.R. It is also submitted that apprehending foulplay the complainant had filed an application before the police even before the occurrence that the accused wanted to interfere in the lawful possession of the complainant.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. It is not denied that the complainant is the owner of the shop in question. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the complainant is still in possession of the same. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role. The shop of the petitioner according to the prosecution case has been amalgamated with the other shop belonging to the co-accused Dr. Dawood. The petitioner claims himself to be a tenant under the said Dr. Dawood but has not prima facie shown the extent of his lawful tenancy or the extent of' his present possession.
7. In view of the above, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for the grant of' bail. This petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M-1281/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.