2002 PLP 9 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 9 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 9 (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 2002 PLP 9 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 9 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Fazal Rauf Joya for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of ‑‑‑Coaccused who was assigned the similar role in the occurrence as alleged against the accused was found innocent during the investigation‑‑ Accused was empty‑handed and did not cause any injury to the deceased‑‑‑Accused being nearest relative of the co‑accused, the likelihood of his being falsely involved in the case could not be ruled out‑‑‑Allegation against the accused needing further probe, he was entitled to bail. Miran Bakhsh v. The State and another PLD 1989 SC 347 ref. Sh. Muhammad Raheem for the Complainant. Sh. Muhammad Aslam for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Fazal Rauf Joya for Petitioner. Sh. Muhammad Raheem for the Complainant. Sh. Muhammad Aslam for the State. Muhammad Ashraf, petitioner, through the instant petition has sought his post‑arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No. 538 of 2000 dated 22‑10‑2000 registered under section .302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal, for the murder of one Umar Hayat, brother of the complainant, Muhammad Ali.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith Mst. Bakhat Bibi overpowered the deceased while Saif‑ur‑Rehman, co accused, who was armed with a hatchet inflicted fatal blows on the person of Umar Hayat, deceased.
3. The motive as mentioned in the F.I.R. is that the deceased was suspected to have some relationship with Mst. Bakhat Bibi, who was also mentioned as accused in the F.I.R. According to the F.I.R., the deceased was murdered in the house of Saif‑ur‑Rehman, accused, son of Mst. Bakhat Bibi, co‑accused.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that Mst. Bakhat Bibi was found to be innocent during the investigation, who was assigned the similar role as alleged‑ against the present petitioner.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner was empty‑handed and did not cause any injury to the deceased. The petitioner is maternal uncle of Saif‑ur Rehman, accused and brother of Mst. Bakhat Bibi, co‑accused. The likelihood of his being falsely involved in the present case cannot be ruled out. Reliance is placed on the case of Miran Bakhsh v. The State and another.(PLD 1989 SC 347). The allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry as envisaged in subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. one lac, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge. H.B.T./M‑807/ Bail granted.