2003 P Cr (PLP)
MASSAN alias MASSU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MASSAN alias MASSU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 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: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (MASSAN alias MASSU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Allah Bakhsh Gondel for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/353/224/225/148/ 149/337-A(ii)/337-L
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7
No allegation was leveled against accused (petitioner) that he resisted his arrest
Accused was neither armed nor any role was attributed to him
Accused party had a counter-version regarding which they had filed a private complaint
Two women of accused's family were also injured during the occurrence
Question of guilt of petitioner, in circumstances, would require further inquiry
Judgment & Decree
Allah Bakhsh Gondel for Petitioner. Rana Jabbar Khan for the State. Seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.236 of 2001, dated 7-9-2001, under sections 324/353, 224, 225, 148, 149, 337-A(ii)/ 337,-L(b), P.P.C. read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, registered on the statement of Sher Muhammad, Sub-Inspector to the effect that on the fateful day he alongwith the, members of the police party went to petitioner's village with a view to effect arrest of the petitioner in a case pending trial before the learned Special Judge, WAPDA in which on account of his non-appearance warrant of arrest had been issued. He arrested the petitioner and as the petitioner was being taken the members of the petitioner's family namely his two sons and womenfolk armed with weapons attacked the police party resorted to firing and injured Hameed, Constable with butt of gun.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution story as alleged in the F.I.R. is false, that the police party entered the house of the petitioner without informing them of their purpose at midnight, that the sons of the petitioner wanted to know about the purpose of police raid and instead of informing them of the purpose the police party started belabouring them and as a result of this two womenfolk of the petitioner's family were injured. He added that the petitioner is an old man of above 62 years of age.
3. Learned State Counsel opposed the petition by submitting that the petitioner had taken law into his hands by resisting the arrest and that no case for bail is made out.
4. Heard.
5. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he resisted the arrest. Admittedly, he was neither armed nor any role is attributed to him. Petitioner party has a counter-version regarding which they have filed a private Complaint. It is not denied that during the occurrence two womenfolk of the petitioner's family were also injured. In these circumstances, the question of petitioner's guilt would require further enquiry. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-1725/L Bail granted.