2008 PLP 703 (YLR)
AMEER SULTAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 703 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | AMEER SULTAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 703 (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 2008 PLP 703 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 703 (YLR) (AMEER SULTAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34
Only allegation of ineffective firing upon complainant had been levelled against accused and co-accused, but no injury was received by him
Story narrated in the F.I.R. by the prosecution appeared to be doubtful and the chances of false involvement of accused in the case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motive due to the previous enmity, could not be ruled out--Whether accused had actively participated in the occurrence was a question, which would be resolved by the Trial Court after recording the evidence
Accused having succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry covered by S.497(2), Cr.P.C. was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Naseemullah Khan Niazi for the Petitioner. Saeed Ashraf Warraich, Addl. Prosecutor General for the State. Muhammad Riaz with record.
Judgment & Decree
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
Through this application under section 497, Cr. P. C. Ameer Sultan, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.5 of 2006, dated 14-1-2006 registered under section 324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Noshera, District Khushab on the statement of Noor Muhammad, the complainant.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioner is that on 22-11-2005 at about 3-00 p.m. he while armed with rifle .222 bore in the company of other accused in furtherance of their common intention launched a murderous assault upon the complainant Noor Muhammad, who luckily saved while taking refuge in the house of some unknown person. The motive behind the occurrence is alleged to be previous enmity of murder case between the parties.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that only ineffective firing has been attributed to the petitioner that story of the prosecution is not believable as three accused persons while armed with fire-arms were alleged to have made straight firing but none of the fire hit the victim/complainant, who got registered the F.I..R. falsely due to previous enmity and that the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry, who is entitled to be released on bail.
4. The learned Additional Prosecutor General has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific role of making firing along with the co-accused and the recovery of alleged weapon has been effected from him that the petitioner is previously involved in criminal cases of such like nature and he is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution.
6. The only allegation of ineffective firing upon the complainant has been levelled against the petitioner along with co-accused but admittedly no injury was received by him. The story narrated in the F.I.R. by the prosecution appears to be doubtful and the chances of false involvement of the petitioner in the present case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motive due to the previous enmity cannot be ruled out. Whether the petitioner had actively participated in the occurrence is a question, which will be resolved by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence and for the time being the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry covered by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. For the foregoing reasons, the instant application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-226/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.