2007 PLP 1315 (YLR)
INAM ABBAS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1315 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J |
| Parties | INAM ABBAS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1315 (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 2007 PLP 1315 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1315 (YLR) (INAM ABBAS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Javed Akhtar Wains for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324 & 34
Accused was not nominated in F.I.R., but was later on involved, even then no overt act was attributed to accused and allegation against him was only of his presence at the spot
Question of vicarious liability, would be determined during the trial
Accused was behind the bars since long
Investigation in the case was complete and challan had been submitted in the court
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Sh. Javed Rashid for the State. Nazir Ahmad, A.S.-I. with record.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.
Petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.28 of 2005 dated 25-1-2005 registered under sections 302/ 324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner as per prosecution story is that he along with Amir co-accused went to the house of victim with pre-meditation where his co-accused committed the murder of Zulfiqar and later on at his pointation the cycle which they had taken from the house of deceased was recovered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is un-explained delay of 17/18 hours in lodging the FIR.; that there was no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence; that co-accused Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Hussain alias Allah Ditta have been exonerated by the complainant and the petitioner implicated through supplementary statement. No overt act is attributed to the petitioner nor any motive has been attributed to him.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the bail and submits that specific role has been attributed to him and recovery of cycle has been effected from his possession.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. It appears from the perusal of F.I.R. that petitioner is not nominated therein and he was later on involved, even then no overt act has been attributed to him and allegation against him is only of presence at the spot. The question of vicarious liability will be determined during the trial. Petitioner is behind the bars since 24-4-2005. Investigation in the case is complete, challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of trial on 17-5-2005.
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./I-8/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.