2000 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD TARIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TARIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD TARIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Aqeel Nasar for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 12th April, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392/411‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Accused was not named in F.I.R. and no identification parade had been held‑‑‑Supplementary statement recorded by police in which accused had been named by complainant, its legal effect would be seen at the time of trial‑‑‑Case against accused was covered by subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. which required further inquiry into guilt of .the accused‑‑‑Accused was allowed bail, in circumstances. Saif Ullah Khalid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is an' application for bail after arrest on behalf of Muhammad Tariq petitioner in case F.I.R. No.483 of 1999, dated 25‑10‑1999 under sections 392 and 411, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Saddar Bhakkar.
2. According to the F.I.R. three persons namely Riaz Khan, Zahoor Ahmad and Manzoor Ahmad snatched the motorcycle of the complainant an also took away Rs.200 from him. S. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was arrested in this case on 9‑11‑1999, that he was not named in the F.I.R., that recovery if any is of joint nature, that petitioner is not a previous non -convict.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner has been named by the complainant in his supplementary statement.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., no identification parade has been held, that supplementary statement which was recorded by the police in which petitioner has been named by the complainant, its legal effect will be seen at the time of trial, therefore, case of the petitioner is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., which requires further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. This petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Thirty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./M‑235/L Bail granted.