2005 PLP 660 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 660 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Akram Baitu, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 660 (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 2005 PLP 660 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Akram Baitu, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 660 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑‑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.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused was attributed a fire‑arm injury on the left knee of the victim which had been declared simple in nature‑‑‑Said injury was on the non‑vital part of the body of the victim and was not repeated‑‑‑Accused was behind the bars for the last more than eight months‑‑ Trial of accused had not yet commenced and he could not be detained in judicial lock up for an indefinite period‑‑‑Case of accused was covered by S. 497(2), Cr. P. C. which called for further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Muhammad Sarwar Awan for the State. Akram, Sub‑Inspector.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Arshad Latif, for Petitioner. Muhammad Sarwar Awan for the State. Akram, Sub‑Inspector. Through this petition the petitioner, has sought for the relief of his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.333 of 2003 dated 24‑10‑2003 registered under section 324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station, Sarai Sidhu District, Khanewal.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely involved in this case due to the mala fide of the complainant; that the offence complained is not applicable against the petitioner; that offence at the most under section 337‑F(iii), P.P.C. is applicable against the petitioner which does not tall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the injury was received by the injured on his non‑vital part of the body; that the petitioner has not repeated the injury who is stated to be behind the bars since 29‑10‑2003; that trial against the petitioner has still not commenced; that case of the petitioner' is covered under subsection 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. On the contrary learned State counsel opposed the petition on the grounds that .the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific part of violence and the offence complained falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner has been found guilty during the investigation, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the extraordinary concession of bail.
4. Heard both the parties, Record perused.
5. It evinces from the record that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with a specific part of violence to this effect that he inflicted injury from his gun which struck on the left knee of Khan Muhammad. The injury has been declared simple in nature which too was on non‑vital part of Khan Muhammad injured. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has pointed out that the petitioner has not repeated injury art the time of commission of crime. He is stated to be behind the bars since 29‑10‑2003 anc5 the trial against him has still not commenced. Speedy trial of the accused petitioner is his recognized right and in case of delay in conclusion of the trial, the accused‑petitioner is justified for asking the relief of his post‑arrest bail. The petitioner cannot be detained in the judicial lock up for an indefinite period. The case of the petitioner is also covered under subsection 2 of section
497. Cr.P.C. He is, therefore, held entitled for the concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑685/L Bail allowed.