2003 PLP 1417 (MLD)
MANZOOR AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1417 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MANZOOR AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1417 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1417 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1417 (MLD) (MANZOOR AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mailk Muntazir Mahdi for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/304/324/337-A(i)/ 337-F(i)/337-H(ii)/337-L(ii)
Accused had been attributed injury with Sota on non-vital parts of the bodies of the injured prosecution witnesses
One of the co-accused had allegedly fired in the air and had threatened the prosecution witnesses, but no injury to any one had been attributed to the co-accused
Two other co accused had been allowed bail and case of accused was identical to that of co-accused and case of co-accused who allegedly had fired in the air, was better than other co-accused
Rule of consistency, would come into play in the case of accused persons
Question of vicarious liability of accused persons for murder of deceased would be gone into at trial
Case of accused requiring further inquiry, they were admitted to bail.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Pervez Qamar Butt for the State. Manzoor Amad and Zahoor Ahmad, the petitioners have sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.393, dated 2-8-2002 under sections 302/304/324/337-A(i)/337-F(i)/337-H(ii)/337-L(ii), P.P.C. registered with Police Station Luddan, District Vehari.
2. The facts of the case were mentioned by me in the order dated 3-3-2003 recorded in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3372-B of 2002. The same, therefore, are not repeated here.
3. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in that their co-accused Riaz and Laloo have been allowed bail by this Court on 3-3-2003 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.367-B of 2003 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.3372-B of 2003, respectively; that the case of petitioner Manzoor Ahmad is quite identical to them; that ease of petitioner No.2 Zahoor Ahmad is on more better footing than them inasmuch as that he has been attributed only ineffective firing and injury to none; and that they are behind the bars and previous non-convicts.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; that Manzoor Ahmad petitioner has caused injury to P.Ws. Muhammad Ayaz and Muhammad Imtiaz while Zahoor Ahmad has made firing in the air; and that they are vicariously liable for the offence.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. As regards petitioner No. 1, he has been attributed injury with Sota to Muhammad Ayaz on his right shoulder and to Muhammad Imtiaz on his left upper-arm. These were on the non-vital parts of the body of the injured P.Ws. As regards petitioner No.2, he has allegedly fired in the air and threatened the P.Ws. that if anyone came near them he would be killed. No injury to anyone has been attributed to him. Their co-accused Riaz and Laloo have been allowed bail on 3-3-2003 as stated above. The case of Manzoor Ahmad is identical to them and that of Zahoor Ahmad better than them for the above reason. Hence, the rule of the consistency comes into play in their case.
7. Even otherwise, the question of their vicarious liability for the murder of deceased would be gone into at the trial. Their case, therefore, is also covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into their guilt. They are behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convicts.
8. In these circumstances, they (petitioners) are entitled to bail. This petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari/trial court. H.B.T./M-1877/L Bail granted.