2006 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shoaib Khan Buzdar for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 498 & 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.379 & 427
Anticipatory bail, confirmation of
Offences complained of against accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Prima facie no material was available against accused to connect them with the crime
Accused had been declared innocent during investigation conducted by local police
Accused were in possession of property in dispute and no offence was made out against them
Sufficient reasons were available to believe that case of accused was that of further inquiry into their guilt which fell under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.-Pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AKRAM BAITU, J.
Through this petition, the petitioners have sought for the relief of their anticipatory bail in a case F.I.R. No.198 of 2003, dated 4-9-2003 registered under sections 427/379, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar, District Layyah on the grounds that they have been falsely implicated in this case; that the offences complained are not applicable against the petitioners nor the same fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and they have been declared innocent during the investigation, therefore, they are entitled for concession of bail.
2. The learned State counsel has strongly opposed the petition.
3. Heard both the parties. Record perused.
4. Admittedly the offences complained do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Apart from that prima facie there is no material available against the petitioners to connect them with the crime complained. Moreover they have been declared innocent during the investigation conducted by the local police vide Zimni No.29, dated 17-12-2003 recorded by Atta Ullah, S.-I. to this effect that the petitioners are owner in possession of the property in dispute and no offence is made out against them. In view of the above discussion and without going into the merits of the case, there are sufficient reasons to believe that the case of the petitioners is that of further inquiry into their guilt and falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order, dated 2-12-2003 is hereby confirmed. H.B.T./M-358/L Bail confirmed.