2004 PLP 1799 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASGHAR alias NONA PEHLWAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1799 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASGHAR alias NONA PEHLWAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1799 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1799 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1799 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASGHAR alias NONA PEHLWAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Farooq Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/337‑F(iii)/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was ascribed solitary fire shot to the complainant/injured on his non‑vital part of body like thigh and he did not repeat fire on complainant‑‑‑Was yet to be seen whether accused, in circumstances, had any intention to kill the complainant and such question could only be determined at trial‑‑‑Case of accused, in circumstances was covered under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt‑‑‑Offence alleged against accused under S.337‑F(iii), P. P. C. was not covered under prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr. P. C. ‑‑‑Accused was stated to be previous non‑convict which fact had not been controverted by other side‑‑ Case for enlargement of accused on bail having been made out, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Bashir Ahmad Gil for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner Muhammad Asghar alias Nona Pehlwan through the instant petition has sought, for post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.436, dated 9‑6‑2003 under sections 324/337‑F(iii)/34, P. P. C. registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Gujrat. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 9‑6‑2003 at about 7‑45 p.m. Muhammad Asghar alias Nona Pehlwan armed with .30 bore pistol and Reehan with .222‑rifle, in furtherance of their common intention have attempted the Qatl‑i‑Amd of complainant Abdul Qayyum. Muhammad Asghar alias Nona Pehlwan had fired with .30 bore pistol at him hitting on his thigh. Reehan had fired at him with .222 rifle hitting on his front side of the right shin. The motive behind the occurrence is previous enmity between them.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has been falsely roped in; that he has been ascribed solitary fire shot to the injured/complainant; that he did not repeat the fire to him; that he is behind the bars since 21‑6‑2003; and that he is previous non‑convict.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has ‑opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he has been ascribed specific role of causing fire‑arm injury to the injured on his thigh; and that the crime weapon pistol has been recovered from him and so, he is connected with the crime.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of the available record.
6. The fact remains that he has ascribed solitary fire shot to the complainant/injured on his non‑vital part of the body like thigh. He did not repeat fire on him. In these circumstances, it is yet to be seen that if he had any intention to kill him. And such question can only be determined at trial. His case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt. The fact also remains that the offence under section 337‑F(iii), P.P.C. is not covered under the prohibitory clause of A section 497(1), Cr. P. C.
7. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non‑convict, which fact has not been controverted by the other side.
8. In these circumstances, I find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. His petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M‑205/L Bail granted.