2018 P Cr (PLP)
DILAWAR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | DILAWAR — 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) (DILAWAR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Fiaz Hussain Dhariwal for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497(2) & 347
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 334, 459, 337(i), 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), 337(iv), 109, 148 & 149
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-udw, hurt and vicarious liability
Conflict in ocular account and medical evidence
Effect
Unexplained delay of one day in registration of FIR
Maximum punishment of the offences charged was not to be considered while deciding bail petition
Record, in the present case, showed that the accused had been assigned the role of causing firearm injury on the right leg of injured person and on the said leg, firearm injury had also been attributed to one co-accused
According to Medico Legal Certificate of injured person, there was only one fire-arm injury on right leg of the injured
Such conflict in the medical evidence and ocular account made the case of the accused of further inquiry
Offence with which the accused was charged was triable by Section-30 Magistrate who could award punishment up to seven years only and whether the same be a fit case to be sent to the Court of Session under S. 347, Cr.P.C. or not, would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence
Accused was previous non-convict and was no more required for further investigation
Bail was granted, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.20/2017 dated 20.01.2017 under sections 324, 334, 459, 337-F(v), 337-F(iv), 337-F(iii), 337-F(i), 109, 148, 149, P.P.C., Police Station Miana Gondal, District Mandi Baha-ud -Din.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Prosecutor-General and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is permissible at this stage. It has been noticed that although petitioner is named in FIR yet the fact remains that there is an unexplained delay of one day in registration of the same, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got registered with due deliberation and consultation. In FIR, the petitioner has been assigned the role of causing firearm injury on right leg of Sarfraz Ahmad injured and on the same leg, a firearm injury has also been attributed to co-accused Tanveer Aslam, but according to Medico-legal Certificate of Sarfraz Ahmad injured, there is only one firearm injury on right leg of the said injured. This conflict in the medical evidence and ocular account makes the case of present petitioner one of further inquiry. The offence with which the petitioner is charged is triable by Magistrate Section-30 who can award punishment upto seven years only and whether it is a fit case to be sent to the Court of Session under section 347, Cr.P.C. or not shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. Even otherwise, it is settled law that maximum punishment is not to be considered while deciding the bail application. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict. The investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. He was arrested in connection with this case on 08.02.2017 and more than one year has lapsed, but his trial has not seen any fruitful progress as yet. Nobody can be kept in jail for indefinite period as speedy trial is right of every accused, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse the concession of bail to an accused, who otherwise, becomes entitled for concession of bail on the merits of the case.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner are granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction 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. MQ/D-2/L Bail granted.