2006 PLP 3041 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus NAZEER AHMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 3041 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus NAZEER AHMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 3041 (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 3041 (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 3041 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus NAZEER AHMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zulfiqar Ali Noon for Petitioner .
- Muhammad Mansoor Ahmad for Respondents.
- 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that respondent was present at his duty at the relevant time of occurrence, that no recovery was effected from him, that three crime empties recovered from the spot matched with the pistol recovered on the pointation of Saif Ullah co-accused, that he is a patient of Hepatitis, so his case is also covered by the first proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. that bail should not be withheld as punishment as the discretion has been used by the Court so that should not be cancelled, that statement of Ishrat Bibi alias Baby wife of the respondent, who was also injured in this case, was also recorded by the police. He has relied upon 1987 P.Cr.L.J. 1388 and 2002 P.Cr.L.J. 1819.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.109
Accused was named in F.I.R. and specific role was attributed to him
Accused joined investigation after one and half months of occurrence when police arrested him on spy information
Police during investigation, came to the conclusion that accused was not present at the spot and that he was accused of abetment
Effect
Opinion of police was not binding on the Court
Prosecution case was supported by more than three eye-witnesses
Offence alleged against accused fell within the ambit of S. 497(1) Cr. P.C.
Petition for cancellation of bail was accepted and bail granted to accused by the Trial Court, was cancelled. 2004 YLR 1515; 1999 PCr.LJ 1260; 1998 PCr.LJ 1652; 1996 PCr.LJ 1004; 1995 PCr.LJ 259; PLD 1994 Pesh 268; 2003 MLD 1466; 1987 PCr.LJ 1388 and 2002 PCr.LJ 1819 ref. Rana Muhammad Shabbir for the State.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the respondent No.1 is named in the F.I.R., that specific role was attributed to him, that he had been allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge merely on police opinion and that offence falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. He has relied upon 2004 YLR 1515, 1999 P.Cr.L.J. 1260, 1998 P.Cr.L.J. 1652, 1996 P.Cr.L.J. 1004, 1995 P.Cr.L.J. 259, PLD 1994 Peshawar 268 and 2003 MLD 1466.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that respondent was present at his duty at the relevant time of occurrence, that no recovery was effected from him, that three crime empties recovered from the spot matched with the pistol recovered on the pointation of Saif Ullah co-accused, that he is a patient of Hepatitis, so his case is also covered by the first proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. that bail should not be withheld as punishment as the discretion has been used by the Court so that should not be cancelled, that statement of Ishrat Bibi alias Baby wife of the respondent, who was also injured in this case, was also recorded by the police. He has relied upon 1987 P.Cr.L.J. 1388 and 2002 P.Cr.L.J. 1819.
3. Learned State counsel submits that respondent is only accused of section 109, P.P.C. but there is no evidence on record against him in this regard.
4. Heard. Respondent is named in the F.I.R. and specific role had been attributed to him. Moreover, occurrence had taken place on 16-11-2005 but he joined the investigation for the first time on 30-12-2005 when police arrested him on spy information when he was boarded in a wagon. During the course of investigation, though the police came to the conclusion that he was not present at the spot but he is accused of abetment. As far as, insistence of learned counsel for the respondent that his wife Mst. Ishrat Bibi alias Baby gave a different version of the occurrence is concerned, I have gone through the statement of Mst. Ishrat Bibi, which was recorded on 6-2-2006 i.e. about 2 months after the occurrence. Opinion of the police is not binding on the Court. There are eye-witness accounts, not in the shape of one witness but in the shape of more than three witnesses. As the offence alleged against the respondent falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., therefore, this petition is accepted and the bail granted to respondent No.1 by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his impugned order dated 6-3-2006 is hereby recalled. H.B.T./M-461/L Bail cancelled.