2008 PLP 420 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 420 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF 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 2008 PLP 420 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 420 (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: 2008 PLP 420 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Arshad Latif for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-F(vi), F(ii), 337-L(ii), 337-H(ii) & 34
Bail before arrest, refusal of
Accused armed with a rifle, whereas his co-accused armed with Sota along with other co-accused attacked complainant party and inflicted serious injuries on the person of prosecution witness who suffered a fracture of the bone and displacement of joint of the shoulder
Case of accused was fully covered under S.337-F(vi), P.P.C., punishable with a sentence of seven years
Accused were found fully involved by the Investigating Officer
Accused had not been able to point out any mala fides on the part of the complainant for their false involvement in the case which was a condition precedent for grant of extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail
F.I.R., though was delayed by five days, but said delay had been explained by the complainant
Weapons of offence had yet to be recovered from accused
Ample evidence was available on record to connect accused with the commission of offence alleged against them
Ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused, was recalled.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Through this petition, the petitioners seek bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No. 75 of 2006, dated 5-2-2006 for offences under sections 337-F(vi)/337-F(ii)/337-L(ii)/337-H(ii)/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Gaggo District Vehari.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners and others while armed with rifle, sotas and iron rods caused injuries on different parts of the body of Muhammad Iqbal P.W.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a delay of five days in lodging of the F.I.R. which had not been explained by the complainant hence false involvement of the petitioners could not be ruled out; that no specific injury had been attributed to the petitioners; that the co-accused for the petitioners namely Abid and Sajid had been declared innocent by the police; that the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. hence the petitioners were entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the petitioners had been nominated in the F.I.R. and specific roles had been attributed to them; that the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. had been explained; that petitioner No.2 Muhammad Aslam had caused injury on the shoulder of Muhammad Iqbal which resulted in fracture of the bone and displacement of the joint; that during the investigation also the petitioners were found to be fully involved in the case; that the co-accused Sajid and Abid had not been declared innocent by the police and that the offence under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C., was punishable with a sentence of seven years hence the petitioners were not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail particularly as recovery had yet to be effected from them.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Petitioner No.1 armed with a rifle whereas petitioner No.2 armed with sota along with other accused attacked the complainant party inflicted serious injuries on the person of Muhammad Iqbal P.W. who suffered a fracture of the bone and displacement of joint of the shoulder fully covered under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. punishable with a sentence of seven years. The petitioners were found fully involved by the Investigating Officer. Needless to mention that the petitioners have not been able to point out any mala fides on the part of the complainant for their false involvement in the case which is a condition precedent for the grant of extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. Although the F.I.R. is delayed by five days nevertheless the delay has been explained by the complainant. The weapons of offence have yet to be recovered from the petitioners. Perusal of the evidence on the record reveals that there is ample evidence on the record to connect the petitioners with the commission of offences alleged against them.
7. Resultantly, the petition being without merit is dismissed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners vide order, dated 7-6-2006 is recalled. H.B.T./M-323/L Bail refused.