2004 PLP 1518 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ALI alias Mamma‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1518 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI alias Mamma‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1518 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1518 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1518 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ALI alias Mamma‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sajjad Hussain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/452/109/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused according to F.I.R. was only a party to the criminal conspiracy to do away with the deceased‑‑‑Question whether anyone would hatch up a conspiracy so openly and at a place like graveyard especially when other persons might be passing nearby, was open to serious consideration‑‑‑Case of accused, thus, well within the purview of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Commencement of trial was no bar to grant of bail to the accused‑‑‑Accused was behind the bars for the last eleven months and he was not a previous convict‑‑‑Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 ref. Sadia Altaf Khan for the State. Shabir Ahmad Khan for the Complainant. Ghulam Rasool, A.S.‑I. with police record.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner Muhammad Ali alias Mamma through the instant petition has sought for post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.682 dated 28‑6‑2003 under sections 302/452/109/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Saddar, Faisalabad.
2. Briefly the prosecution case per F.I.R. is that he was party to the criminal conspiracy to do away with deceased Mst. Tasawar Bibi.
3. It has been argued on his behalf that he had falsely been roped in; that he had no motive to hatch up the conspiracy with his co‑accused to do away with the deceased; and that he is behind the bars for the last about 11 months and so for there is no substantial progress towards his trial.
4. Conversely the learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I. R. that he was the person who had hatched up conspiracy to do away with the deceased and so he is sufficiently connected with the crime; and that his trial has commenced.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The only allegation against him in the F.I.R. is that he was' party to the criminal conspiracy to do away with the deceased. It is like that he alongwith his co‑accused on 27‑6‑2003 at about 5/6 p.m. was present in the graveyard of the village when P.Ws. Nasir and Murtaza Gujjar were passing therefrom and he was saying to them to murder deceased Mst: Tasawar Bibi.
7. The question that if anyone will hatch up conspiracy so openly and at a place like graveyard especially when other persons may be passing nearby is open to serious consideration. His case, therefore, definitely falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt.
8. I have been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so for only one witness and that too relating to the execution of the process against the proclaimed offenders has been examined and none from the prosecution witnesses. Even otherwise, the commencement of trial is no bar to the grant of bail to accused. The reference in this regard is made to the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 SC 585).
9. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about 11 months and a previous non‑convict.
10. In these circumstances. I find that case for his enlargement on bail has been made our.
11. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑301/L Bail allowed.