2002 SCMR 1415 (PLP)
ABDUL REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAVED and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 SCMR 1415 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Dogar and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAVED and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 SCMR 1415 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 SCMR 1415 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 SCMR 1415 (PLP) (ABDUL REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAVED and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mirza Masood‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th April, 2002.
- 3. Mirza Masood‑ur‑Rehman, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner mainly contended that the respondents were the main culprits as they attacked upon the house of the complainant with a motive to dispossess from the land. As such the bail already granted to them may be cancelled.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 19‑11‑2001 of the Lahore High Court. Lahore, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.6290‑B of 2001). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.497(2) & 497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/148/149‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art, 185(3)‑‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑‑Case of further inquiry ‑‑‑Lalkara and firing in the air‑‑‑Accused persons were attributed role of raising of Lalkara and firing in air without aiming at the complainant or anyone else‑‑‑Bail was allowed by High Court to the accused persons on the ground of further inquiry‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Accused persons if had any intention to kill the complainant or to dispossess him from the land, there was nobody to prevent the accused persons from doing so‑‑‑High Court had rightly held the role of the accused persons to be that of further inquiry‑ ‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the bail granted by High Court to the accused persons‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 19‑11‑2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6290‑B of 2001 whereby respondents Javed and Iqbal were granted bail after arrest.
2. The backgrounds of filing of this petition are that the petitioner Abdul Rehman lodged F.I.R. No. 104 dated 28‑7‑2001 under sections 148/302/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Jandanwala, District Bhakkar, stating therein that on the night between 27/28‑7‑2001 at about 12‑30 midnight, he alongwith his family members were sleeping in the courtyard of his house when all of a sudden, the respondents alongwith their co‑accused came there. The respondents were armed with .32 bore pistol while the others were armed with different type of weapons. The respondents raised Lalkara that they had come to teach lesson to the complainant for not giving the share of land and thereafter they started firing at his Dera. The petitioner and his family members in order to save their lives, started running inside the house. Mst. Kanizan, his sister, who had come as a guest also started running but she was fired at by the co‑accused Umar Hayat from his .32 bore pistol which hit on her forehead and she laid down and succumbed to the injury. Thereafter, all of them decamped. The bail application of the respondents was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, whereas they were granted bail by the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
3. Mirza Masood‑ur‑Rehman, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner mainly contended that the respondents were the main culprits as they attacked upon the house of the complainant with a motive to dispossess from the land. As such the bail already granted to them may be cancelled.
4. We have gone through the impugned order as well as the tile of the case in detail.
5. The role attributed to the respondents is that of raising of Lalkara and tiring in the air without aiming at the complainant or anyone else. Thus their role has been perfectly held by the Lahore High Court to be that of further inquiry. Had the respondents any intention to kill the complainant or to dispossess him from the land, there was nobody to prevent them from doing so. Thus, the impugned order does not require any interference.
6. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑213/S Leave refused.