2017 PLP 187 (YLRN)
RIAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 187 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Sami Khan, J |
| Parties | RIAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 187 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 187 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Sami Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 187 (YLRN) (RIAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nadeem Sheikh for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 109, 148 & 149
Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly
Allegation against the accused was that he, along with his co-accused, armed with firearms, committed murder of two persons
Role attributed to present accused was that he, while armed with pistol, made two successive fires at one deceased which hit the deceased on left armpit and left hand
Role attributed to accused was borne out from post-mortem of the deceased
Accused remained fugitive from law for a period of six years
Investigation of the case revealed that accused had been found guilty
Recovery of pistol had been effected from accused during investigation
No ill-will or animosity of the complainant with the accused had been brought on record and there was no reason to falsely involve the accused in a case of such nature
Offence with which the accused was charged fell under the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.
Challan had been submitted in the Trial Court
Ample evidence was available in the shape of statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. involving the accused in the case
Bail was refused accordingly. [Para. 2 of the judgment] Irfan Zia, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State and Muhammad Ali, A.S.I. with record.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C., Riaz Hussain, the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 302/2009, dated 25.04.2009 registered at Police Station Saddar Jaranwala District Faisalabad in respect of offences under sections 302, 109, 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. As per FIR the allegation against the present petitioner is that he along with his co-accused while armed firearms committed murder of Nadeem Akbar deceased and Waqas Aamar deceased and the role attributed to the present petitioner is that he while armed with pistol 30 bore made two successive fires at Nadeem Akbar which hit him on his left armpit and left hand. The role attributed to the petitioner is borne out from the post mortem of Nadeem Akbar deceased. According to the record, the petitioner remained fugitive from law for a period of six years. During the investigation of this case the petitioner has been found guilty by the Investigation Officer. Recovery of pistol .30 bore has been effected from the petitioner during investigation. So far no ill-will or animosity of the complainant with the petitioner has been brought on record so that the former could falsely involve the latter in a case of this nature. The offence with which the petitioner is charged falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Challan has been submitted in the learned trial court. There is ample evidence in the shape of statements of PWs recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. involving the present petitioner in this case. Rest of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner amounts to deeper appreciation of evidence which cannot be appreciated at this stage. The case laws referred by learned counsel for the petitioner do not attract to the facts and circumstances of this case.
3. For what has been discussed above, this petition has got no force and the same is hereby dismissed.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. WA/R-16/L Petition dismissed.