2004 PLP 1940 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD AMEER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1940 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMEER — 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 1940 (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 1940 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1940 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AMEER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 14th January, 2004.
- 2. At the time of issuing notice in the instant petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that earlier application was dismissed because a statement was made before this Court by Mian Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate For the complainant that statement of witness of abetment had already been recorded, so notice was issued and in the meanwhile, I also called a report from the learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, whether any Presiding Officer is working or not where the trial of instant case is pending. Report from learned Sessions Judge has been received. According to the said report, presently, Mr. Khalid Rashid, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhakkar has assumed the charge and the Court is in function.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497‑‑‑Second bail application‑‑ Maintainability‑‑‑Bail application earlier filed by accused was dismissed by High Court on grounds that trial had started and statement of one witness of abetment had been recorded and that no case for grant of bail was made out‑‑‑Position, in the present bail application was same and no fresh ground for grant of bail had been put forth‑‑‑Proceedings in trial of case were going on‑‑‑In absence of any new ground for grant of bail, second bail application being not maintainable was dismissed. PLD 1998 SC 241; 2002 MLD 712 and PLD 1999 SC 581 ref. Ch. Imran Raza Chadhar for Petition. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Complainant Miss Shagufta Kausar for the state.
Judgment & Decree
PLD 1998 SC 241; 2002 MLD 712 and PLD 1999 SC 581 ref. Ch. Imran Raza Chadhar for Petition. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Complainant Miss Shagufta Kausar for the state. Date of hearing: 14th January, 2004. This is second bail petition on behalf of the petitioner. His earlier Crl. Misc. No.6055 ‑B of 2003 was dismissed by this Court on 13‑11‑2003 in which the following order was passed that "the trial having started and statement of one witness of abetment having been recorded, no case for bail is made out, dismissed."'
2. At the time of issuing notice in the instant petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that earlier application was dismissed because a statement was made before this Court by Mian Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate For the complainant that statement of witness of abetment had already been recorded, so notice was issued and in the meanwhile, I also called a report from the learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, whether any Presiding Officer is working or not where the trial of instant case is pending. Report from learned Sessions Judge has been received. According to the said report, presently, Mr. Khalid Rashid, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhakkar has assumed the charge and the Court is in function.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the bare perusal of the statement of P.W.6 the witness of abetment no case is made out against the petitioner. He has only stated that he will follow up the case if Gul Muhammad is murdered. He relied upon PLD 1998 SC 241; 2002 MLD 712 and PLD 1999 SC 581 and also on two unreported judgments. When he was referring the said two unreported judgments he submits that this Court had already granted bail to him in which 10 witnesses were already examined. I have gone through the said unreported judgments, there is no mention as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. A misstatement has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner before me I because it: that case petitioner was a woman and the bail was granted that petitioner was accused of abetment and there was a delay of 12 days in lodging the F.I.R. In the instant case, position is the same, there is no fresh ground, so without going into the, merits of the case, as the trial is proceeding on and fixed for 14, 15 and 16 of this month, no ground, for bail is made out, therefore, this petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑213/L Bail application dismissed.