2002 PLP 945(2) (YLR)
KHALID MEHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 945(2) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, J |
| Parties | KHALID MEHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 945(2) (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 2002 PLP 945(2) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 945(2) (YLR) (KHALID MEHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Arshad Latif for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 14th November, 2001.
- 3. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General assisted by learned State counsel have opposed the petition by submitting that the petitioner was specifically named in the F.I.R. and the role attributed to him is corroborated by the statements of those who were‑operated upon. Learned A.A‑G. further submitted that the case is fixed for recording of prosecution evidence on 27‑11‑2001.
- 5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he acted as Compounder and assisted the co‑accused who conducted eye operations. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General has read out the statements of three victims. They specifically named the petitioner as one of those who assisted in those operations. Prima facie, the petitioner .is privy to an offence which falls in the Prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The case is set down for recording of prosecution evidence. In these circumstances, I see no ground for the grant of bail to the petitioner. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case I am persuaded to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within 30 days of the receipt of this order.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/336/419/34‑‑‑Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Ordinance (LXV of 1962), S.9‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Allegation against accused was that he acted as compounder and assisted co‑accused who conducted eye‑operations while they had not requisite professional degree in surgery and were not even M.B.B.S.‑‑‑Three victims in their statements had specifically named the accused as one of those who assisted in the said operations‑‑‑Prima facie accused was privy to offence which fell under prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr. P. C. ‑‑‑Case was set down for recording of prosecution evidence‑‑‑Bail petition was dismissed in circumstances. Mehr Masood Sadiq Tulla for the Complainant. M. Qasim Khan, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Mehr Masood Sadiq Tulla for the Complainant. M. Qasim Khan, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 14th November, 2001. Petitioner seeks bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No. 211 of 2001 dated 27‑4‑2001, under sections 324, 419 and 336/34, P.P.C. read with section 9 the Allopathic Ordinance, Police Station, Saddar Pakpattan Sharif wherein is alleged that the petitioner alongwith others were conducted eye operations of several persons, although they were not having requisite professional degree in Surgery. They were not even M.B.B.S.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that the role attributed to the petitioner is of mere assistance to the main accused who allegedly conducted eye operations, that 15 injured were alleged operated upon did not support the prosecution case to the extent of the petitioner, that there is no "mens rea" in the alleged offence so far the petitioner is concerned.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General assisted by learned State counsel have opposed the petition by submitting that the petitioner was specifically named in the F.I.R. and the role attributed to him is corroborated by the statements of those who were‑operated upon. Learned A.A‑G. further submitted that the case is fixed for recording of prosecution evidence on 27‑11‑2001.
4. Heard.
5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he acted as Compounder and assisted the co‑accused who conducted eye operations. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General has read out the statements of three victims. They specifically named the petitioner as one of those who assisted in those operations. Prima facie, the petitioner .is privy to an offence which falls in the Prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The case is set down for recording of prosecution evidence. In these circumstances, I see no ground for the grant of bail to the petitioner. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case I am persuaded to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within 30 days of the receipt of this order. H.B.T./K‑115/L Petition dismissed.