PCRLJ 1994

1994 P Cr (PLP)

HABIB and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
20thNovember, 1993
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1994 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties HABIB and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law (a) Investigation, (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Investigation, (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 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: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (HABIB and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Investigation (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Rana Iqbal Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Solemn affirmation

No concept of solemn affirmation during the Police investigation.

S. 498

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34

Pre-arrest bail, grant of

Neither any crime empty was recovered from the spot nor any person was injured

Accused according to the complainant were not present at the place of occurrence

Interim pre-arrest bail allowed to accused was confirmed in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

Rana Iqbal Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Nazir Ahmad Gurdaspuri and Nazir Ahmad Qureshi for the State Date of hearing: 20th November, 1993. The petitioners who are involved in a case under section 324/34, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.324, dated 13-8-1993, registered at Police Station Khanqah Dogran, seek to be admitted to pre-arrest bail. Vide order of this Court, dated 16-10-1993 they were admitted to ad interim pre-arrest bail. Today, the case is fixed for confirmation or otherwise of the said order.

2. As per F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioners is that of ineffective firing:

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners 2 and 3, namely, Atta Muhammad and Inayat were found innocent during the investigation and that no crime empty was found at the spot. With respect to petitioners 1 and 4, i.e. Habib and Sanaullah, learned counsel submitted that due to civil litigation pending between the parties, they too have been involved in this case maliciously, so all the four petitioners are entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State after going through the record conceded that Atta Muhammad and Inayat were found innocent during the investigation on the solemn affirmation made by the complainant, whereas the remaining two were found involved in the case.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the bail application of the petitioners on the ground that there is no concept of solemn affirmation during the police investigation. I approve this finding of the learned Judge, but at the same time I should not be unmindful of the fact that in this case neither any crime empty was recovered from the spot nor any person was injured. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, the ad interim pre-arrest bail allowed to Atta Muhammad and Inayat is confirmed, because according to the complainant they were not present at the spot, whereas the bail petition qua Habib and Sanaullah petitioners is dismissed, who were found involved in this case. N.H.Q./H-114/L Order accordingly.