YLR 2007

2007 PLP 1145 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD QAMAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.58-B of 2007, decided on 6th February, 2007.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP 1145 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J
Parties MUHAMMAD QAMAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
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 2007 PLP 1145 (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 2007 PLP 1145 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1145 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD QAMAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Malik Muhammad Aslam for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S.497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380 & 454

Bail, grant of

Section 454, P.P.C. was punishable with three years, but if trespass was completed with theft, sentence could be extended to 10 years

Prima facie, it was yet to be established that accused was convicted with the actual theft or not, which could only be determined after recording of evidence

No previous record of accused was available and offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.-No exceptional circumstances for refusal of bail having been pointed out in the offences against accused, and the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Muhammad Afzal Pansota Addl. Prosecution General for the State with Muhammad Sadiq S.-I.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.

Muhammad Qamar petitioner seeks after-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.382 dated 19-9-2006 for offences under sections 454/380, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Saddar, Bahawalpur.

2. The prosecution story, as narrated in the F.I.R. lodged by Hakeem Zafar Iqbal rings weighing 1-1/2 tolas, four bangles weighing 2 tolas and one mobile along with cash amounting to Rs.20,000 was found missing. Siraj Ahmad and Ghulam Yaseen P.W. told that at about Zohar time, they saw Qari Fayaz Abasi, Tayab Bhatti along with petitioner coming from the house of the complainant. Hence the present F.I.R.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is behind the bars since 22-9-2006, that no witness from the locality was associated at the time of alleged recovery; that. the petitioner has no previous record; that he has been falsely involved by the complainant on account of some dispute of money; and that the offences with which the petitioner stands charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General has opposed the application. It is contended that co-accused of the petitioner are still absconding; that ears-ring identified by the complainant are recovered from the petitioner and that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Section 454, P.P.C. is punishable with three years but if trespass is 'coupled with theft, the sentence may extend to 10 years. Prima facie, it is yet to be established that petitioner was connected with the actual theft or not which can only be determined after recording of evidence. Since there is no previous record of the petitioner and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the learned Additional Prosecutor General has not been able to point out any exceptional circumstance for refusal of bail in offences which otherwise do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., accordingly he is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-73/L Bail granted.