2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)
MUHAMMAD FIAZ and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Aslam Javed Minhas, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FIAZ and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: Aslam Javed Minhas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN) (MUHAMMAD FIAZ and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Shamshad Ali Rizvi for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A(i), 337-A(iii) & 34
Causing Shajjah-i-Khafifah, Shajjah-i-Hashimah, common intention
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Unexplained delay of eight days in lodging the FIR
Role of two accused persons, was general one, whereas the quarrel took place between the complainant and another accused who gave fist blow on the face of the complainant, due to which he became injured; and his two teeth were broken
Medical Report had supported the accusation
Said other accused appeared to have been involved in the commission of alleged offence; and sufficient material in the shape of Medical Report and statements of the prosecution witnesses were available on record
Extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, could not be extended to said accused
Bail petition to his extent, was dismissed
Two accused persons had been attributed a general role of fighting and giving slaps on the face of complainant
As to what extent, they had participated in the occurrence, was the question, which would be judged at trial
Said accused persons had joined the investigation, which was completed
Handing over their custody to the Police, at such a stage, would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution
Bail petition to the extent of accused persons, was accepted, and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them, was confirmed; whereas petition to the extent of other accused, was dismissed, in circumstances. [Paras.4, 5, 6 and 7 of the judgment] Ch. Muhammad Akber, D.P.G. for the State. Mudassar Altaf Qureshi for the Complainant. Nawaz, A.S.I. with record. ORDER ASLAM JAVED MINHAS, J.
Muhammad Fayyaz, Muhammad Iftikhar and Muhammad Shahbaz, petitioners seek their pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.222/15 dated 30.05.2015, registered under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iii) and 34 P.P.C., at Police Station Chowk Azam, District Layyah.
2. The allegation against the petitioners as set forth in the FIR is they, along with their accomplices, in furtherance of their common intention, inflicted fists blows on the person of complainant, due to which, his two teeth were broken.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Perusal of record reflects that there is delay of more than 8 days in lodging the FIR which is unexplained. As per police record, the role of Muhammad Fayyaz and Muhammad Iftikhar, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 is general one whereas the quarrel was only took place between the complainant and Muhammad Shahbaz, petitioner No.3 who gave fist blow on the face of complainant due to which, he became injured and his two teeth were broken. MLC is there to support the said accusation.
5. In view of the above, since Muhammad Shahbaz, prima facie, appears to have been involved in the commission of alleged offence and sufficient material in the shape of MLC and statements of the PWs are available on record, therefore, I am not inclined to extend this extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail in his favour. As such, this petition to his extent is hereby dismissed.
6. So far as the case of Muhammad Iftikhar and Muhammad Fayyaz, petitioners is concerned, they have been attributed a general role of fighting and giving slaps on the face of complainant. To what extent, they have participated in the occurrence, is the question, which would be adjudged at trial stage. According to the Investigating Officer, they have joined the investigation, which is even otherwise complete. Handing over their custody to the notice, at this stage, would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution.
7. In view of the above, this petition to the extent of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 is hereby accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One hundred Thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, whereas the petition to the extent of Muhammad Shahbaz, petitioner No.2 is hereby dismissed.
8. The observations referred above are only of tentative in nature and would not prejudice the trial of the case. HBT/M-294/L Order accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM JAVED MINHAS, J.
Muhammad Fayyaz, Muhammad Iftikhar and Muhammad Shahbaz, petitioners seek their pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.222/15 dated 30.05.2015, registered under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iii) and 34 P.P.C., at Police Station Chowk Azam, District Layyah.
2. The allegation against the petitioners as set forth in the FIR is they, along with their accomplices, in furtherance of their common intention, inflicted fists blows on the person of complainant, due to which, his two teeth were broken.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Perusal of record reflects that there is delay of more than 8 days in lodging the FIR which is unexplained. As per police record, the role of Muhammad Fayyaz and Muhammad Iftikhar, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 is general one whereas the quarrel was only took place between the complainant and Muhammad Shahbaz, petitioner No.3 who gave fist blow on the face of complainant due to which, he became injured and his two teeth were broken. MLC is there to support the said accusation.
5. In view of the above, since Muhammad Shahbaz, prima facie, appears to have been involved in the commission of alleged offence and sufficient material in the shape of MLC and statements of the PWs are available on record, therefore, I am not inclined to extend this extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail in his favour. As such, this petition to his extent is hereby dismissed.
6. So far as the case of Muhammad Iftikhar and Muhammad Fayyaz, petitioners is concerned, they have been attributed a general role of fighting and giving slaps on the face of complainant. To what extent, they have participated in the occurrence, is the question, which would be adjudged at trial stage. According to the Investigating Officer, they have joined the investigation, which is even otherwise complete. Handing over their custody to the notice, at this stage, would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution.
7. In view of the above, this petition to the extent of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 is hereby accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One hundred Thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, whereas the petition to the extent of Muhammad Shahbaz, petitioner No.2 is hereby dismissed.
8. The observations referred above are only of tentative in nature and would not prejudice the trial of the case. HBT/M-294/L Order accordingly.