2006 P Cr (PLP)
ZAHID HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAHID HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 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 2006 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: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (ZAHID HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Akhtar Ghuman for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 337-A(iii), 337-F(i) & 34
Complainant lodged F.I.R. alleging therein that one brother of complainant was murdered and other was injured by accused with hatchet blows
Accused/petitioner sought bail on grounds; that no recovery was effected from him and that there was contradiction in Medico-legal Report and ocular account, benefit of which could be given to accused even at bail stage
Scope
Accused/petitioner was attributed hatchet blows but according to Medico-legal Reports neither deceased nor the injured received any sharp-edged injury
Clear-cut contradiction existed in Medico-legal Reports and ocular account
No recovery was effected from accused
Accused having been found innocent during police investigation, was placed in Column No.2 of the challan
Finding of police though was not binding on Court, yet same was relevant at bail stage especially when finding was with regard to innocence of accused
In previous bail petition filed by accused, Trial Court had been directed to conclude trial within prescribed time but Trial Court failed to comply with the direction
Delay in conclusion of trial occurred on account of mala fide on the part of t prosecution
If police or complainant indulged in delaying tactics or frustrated the powers of Trial Court to proceed with the matter, it would be the duty of Court to come to the rescue of accused person and save him from prolonged and unwarranted detention
Bail petition was allowed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.200, dated 13-8-2005 registered under sections 302, 337-A(iii), 337-F(i)/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Chhab Kalan District Khanewal.
2. According to the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his three co-accused launched an attack upon Qasim Hussain complainant and his brothers namely, Mumtaz Hussain and Muhammad Akbar and he caused injury with his hatchet on the left hand of Mumtaz Hussain and gave second injury with his hatchet on the head of Muhammad Akbar, who later on succumbed to the injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no recovery was effected from the petitioner; that there are contradictions in the ocular account and the Medico-legal Reports, benefit of which should be given to the petitioner at bail stage and in this behalf reliance is placed upon Syed Abdul Baqi Shah v. The State 1997 SCMR 32; that during investigation prosecution could not produce any evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence, therefore, he was declared innocent by the police which makes case of the petitioner that of further enquiry and that although more than three months have passed since the withdrawal of the application of the petitioner for bail on the basis of the direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial within two months, yet the trial has not been concluded and as such the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the trial is in progress.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. The petitioner was attributed hatchet blows to the deceased as well as to the injured, however, according to Medico-legal Reports none of them received any sharp-edged injury, so there are clear-cut contradictions in the ocular account and the Medico-legal Reports, as such the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Syed Abdul Baqi Shah v. The State 1997 SCMR
32. The petitioner was found innocent during the investigation and has been placed in Column No.2 of the challan. Although finding of police is not binding on the Court, yet the same is relevant at bail stage especially when the finding is with regard to innocence of accused. Reliance is placed on Bashir Ahmad v. State 2005 PCr.LJ
967. Earlier the petitioner had applied for hail by filing an application (Criminal Miscellaneous No.238/B or 2006), which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order, dated 27-2-2006 passed by this Court. However, the trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within two months from the date of receipt of the said order. More than three months have passed but trial has not been concluded. Therefore, I am of the view that this delay is on account of mala fide on the part or the prosecution. If the police or the complainant indulges in delaying tactics, or frustrates the powers or the Court to proceed with the matter, it would be the duty of the Court to come to the rescue of an accused person and save him from the prolonged unwarranted detention. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Fida Hussain alias Shamla v. The State 1982 PCr.LJ 1201.
7. In view of the above circumstances, I find that the petitioner has been able to make out a case of further enquiry, therefore, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. S.M.B./Z-34/L Bail granted.