MLD 2004

2004 PLP 1921 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD JAMAL alias JAMALI-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2004-February-18
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2004 PLP 1921 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties MUHAMMAD JAMAL alias JAMALI-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1921 (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 2004 PLP 1921 (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: 2004 PLP 1921 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD JAMAL alias JAMALI-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Ch. Abdul Ghaffar Bhutta for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 392

Bail, grant of

Matter was reported to police after a delay of four weeks

No incriminating material was recovered from accused during investigation

Incomplete challan had been submitted before the Court and rest of accused were yet to be arrested

No likelihood was in circumstances of commencement of trial in near future

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

Muhammad Jamal alias Jamali-petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.321, registered at Police Station, Shedani, on 26-8-2003, for offence under section 392, P.P.C.

2. Succinctly, the relevant facts per F.I.R. Are that four accused, who were armed with fire-arms trespassed into the house of the complainant during midnight and committed robbery of cash, ornaments and TV of the value of Rs.25,

000. According to F.I.R., the complainant and the P.Ws. Identified the petitioner alongwith Iqbal co-accused.

3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 4-11-2003 and has been sent to the judicial lock-up after completion of investigation.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that the matter was reported to the police after a delay of four weeks; that during investigation no incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner; that so far incomplete challan has been submitted before the Court; and that rest of the accused are yet to be arrested, it means that there is no likelihood of commencement of trial in near future. In these circumstances, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, Subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rupees one lac, with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-619/L Bail granted.