2018 P Cr (PLP)
NOOR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD — 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 2018 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2018 P Cr (PLP) (NOOR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amjad Iqbal Khan for Petitioner and Petitioner in person.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A(i)(iii), 337-F(i), 337-L(2) & 34
Causing Shajjah-i-Khafifah, Shajjah-i-Hashimah, Damiyah, hurt, common intention
Accused, though was named in FIR, but only the allegation of raising "lalkara" and causing "sota" blow on the right side of forehead of injured was levelled against him
Injury attributed to accused had been declared Shajjah-i-Khafifah, which was a bailable offence
No role whatsoever had been assigned to accused in commission of alleged offence
Injury falling under S.337-A(iii), P.P.C., was specifically attributed to co-accused
Questions of sharing common intention and vicarious liability of accused, would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence
Accused who was an old man, was father of co-accused
Possibility could not be ruled out of consideration that the complainant had implicated accused in the case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive by spreading the net wide
Accused was previous non-convict
Person of accused, could not be handed over to the Police only for the purpose of effecting recovery, which otherwise had lost relevancy with the passage of time as said recovery of weapon of offence "sota" was to be effected after lapse of six months, which was of little help to the prosecution
Accused had already joined the investigation, which was complete to his extent
No useful purpose would be served by sending accused behind the bars
Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.210/17, dated 25.06.2017 registered at Police Station Ahmadpur Sial, District Jhang in respect of offences under sections 337A(i), 337-A(iii), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 34, P.P.C.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage, therefore, without going into deeper appreciation of evidence, it is noticed that although petitioner is named in FIR, yet the fact remains that only the allegation of raising "lalkara" and causing "sota" blow on right said of forehead of Muhammad Hanif injured is leveled against him and admittedly the injury attributed to the petitioner has been declared by the doctor as Shajjah-i-Khafifa falling under section 337-A(i), P.P.C., which is bailable offences. Apart from the above, no role whatsoever has been assigned to the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence. According to the narrations of FIR, the injury falling under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. is specifically attributed to co-accused Asif. It is settled law that the questions of sharing common intention and vicarious liability of the petitioner shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. The petitioner is an old man and is real father of co-accused Asif and Muhammad Ishaque, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out of consideration that the complainant has implicated the present petitioner in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive by spreading the net wide. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict. The person of the petitioner cannot be handed over to the police only for the purpose of effecting recovery, which otherwise has lost relevancy with the passage of time as occurrence in this case took place on 29.05.2017. In such situation, recovery of weapon of offence i.e. "sota" after the lapse of six months is of little help to the prosecution. In this regard, reliance can be placed on 2014 SCMR 1349. The petitioner has already joined the investigation which is complete to his extent, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars so as to enable him to come out of jail on post-arrest bail after few days.
3. For what has been discussed above, false application of the petitioner with mala fide intention and ulterior motive cannot be ruled out of consideration, hence this petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfication of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. HBT/N-3/L Bail confirmed.