2000 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Jamil Akhtar for Petitioners. Naeem Sadiq for the State.
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337‑A(i)/337‑A(ii)/337‑A(iii)/ 337‑F(ii)/148/149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Police admittedly had challaned both the parties in the case‑‑‑Investigation in the case was complete and accused were no more required for further inquiry‑‑‑Accused were released on bail in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioners seek bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.449 of 1998, dated 4‑11‑1998 under sections 337‑A(i), 337‑A(ii), 337‑A(iii), 337‑F(ii) and 148/149, P.P.C. with Police Station Sillanwali, District Sargodha. The prosecution story as alleged in the F.I.R briefly stated is that on fateful day Ismail petitioner armed with hatchet, Falak Sher armed with Sota, Safdar Ijaz armed with knife, Muhammad Hayat and Muhammad Yar armed with Sotas, came to the spot and attacked upon Muhammad Nawaz and Ahmad Yar and caused injuries to them. The motive of alleged occurrence is that the accused party has raised wall which made the street narrow and when the complainant party tried to stop, they were attacked. Learned counsel for the petitioners has sought bail on the ground that the accused was victim of the attack; that three persons from their side received injuries whereas two persons from the complainant side were injured; that the prosecution has challaned both the parties and that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
2. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer.
3. It is not denied that the police has challaned both the parties. The investigation is complete and petitioners are no more required for further inquiry.
4. In the afore‑referred circumstances, I am inclined to allow this petition and it is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with one A surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate Section 30 concerned. N.H.Q./M‑1276/L Bail granted.