2007 PLP 483 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another-Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 483 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another-Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 483 (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 483 (YLR)?
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: 2007 PLP 483 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another-Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imran Asmat Ch. for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 148 & 149
Accused though was armed with .12 bore gun, but he did not cause any fire-arm injury to any injured prosecution witness
Accused only gave butt blows to injured prosecution witness
Co-accused along with others caused injuries to two prosecution witnesses
Case of both the accused was on similar footing as that of their co-accused who had already been allowed bail
Following the law of consistency, accused were allowed bail, accordingly. Malik Sultan Ahmad for the State along with Aman Ullah S.-I with record.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMAMD SHARIF, J.
I had already dealt with Criminal Miscellaneous No.9570-B of 2005 vide order dated 26-1-2005, application of Muhammad Abbas was dismissed as he was armed with fire-arm and caused injury to the injured P.W. Gulfam co-accused was armed with Danda and only one injury was attributed to him so his application was accepted. Then Crl. Misc. No.4568-B of 2005 filed by Iftikhar etc. was dealt with by this Court and vide order dated 4-7-2005, their application was also dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the F.I.R. Aslam petitioner was armed with .12 bore gun and caused butt blows to Amjad Ali injured P.W. while Shaukat petitioner caused Danda blows to Mushtaq and Shahbaz P.Ws. that Aslam petitioner did not fire at any person although he was armed with .12 bore gun; that no specific injury is attributed to the petitioners; that no recovery was effected from the petitioner; that they did not even touch the deceased; that case of the petitioners is of further inquiry falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that in the first investigation conducted by DSP the petitioners were found guilty but later on declared them innocent; that now the investigation has been transferred to Shaukat Ali, D.S.P. Investigation but he has not given his findings. He admits that no recovery was effected from the petitioners; that case of petitioners falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Aslam petitioner was armed with .12 bore gun but he did not cause any fire-arm injury to any injured P.W. He caused butt blows to Amjad Ali injured P.W. As far as Shaukat petitioner is concerned, he along with Waqas and Asif caused injuries to Mushtaq and Shahbaz injured P.Ws. Their case is on similar footing to that of their co-accused Gulfam who had already been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 26-1-2005, therefore following the law of consistency this petition is accepted and the petitioners are allowed bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court. H.B.T./M-687/L Bail granted.