2006 PLP 2382 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2382 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2382 (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 2006 PLP 2382 (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: 2006 PLP 2382 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Zahid for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 353, 148 & 149
Ten accused were named and some were shown to be unknown
Accused was not named in F.I.R., but was named on the very next day of occurrence by a police officer in his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.
No other witness had named the said accused and no recovery had been effected from him
Case of accused was of further inquiry falling under sub-clause (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.-Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Sohail Tariq for the State along with Razzaq, A.S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., that he has been falsely implicated, that one Mehmood Ahmad, A.S.-I. made a supplementary statement in which he named the petitioner, that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, that no source has been mentioned in the supplementary statement by Mehmood Ahmad A.S.-I. He further submits that three accused named in the F.I.R. were declared innocent but later on, S.P. Investigation had declared all of them including the present petitioner guilty in this case.
2. Learned State counsel submits that Mehmood Ahmad, A.S.-I. has named the petitioner on the next day of the occurrence, that he has been found guilty by the police and that offence committed by the petitioner is a heinous one.
3. Heard. In the instant case, 10 accused were named and some were shown to be unknown. Petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., he was named on the very next day of the occurrence by Mehmood Ahmad, A.S.-I. in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. stating therein that unknown accused, who are mentioned in the F.I.R., amongst them, petitioner was one the accused and he has also been making firing, except Mehmood Ahmad, A.S.-I. no other witness has named the petitioner and no recovery has been effected from him. To my mind, case of the petitioner is of further inquiry, falling under sub-clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.1,00,000 (One lac) two sureties in the like-amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judi) of this Court. H.B.T./M-292/L Bail granted.