2016 PLP 1498 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1498 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore Multan (Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 1498 (MLD)?
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 1498 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore Multan (Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 1498 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mrs. Saeeda Asif for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497, 87, 88, 512 & 161
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148, 149, 109 & 114
Qatl-e-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, common object and abetment
Accused were nominated in the FIR having specific role
Accused were present at the scene of occurrence while making lalkara
Offence under S. 114, P.P.C. had been made out against the accused
Motive was also attributed to the present accused
Accused powers remained fugitive from law and were declared proclaimed offenders
No progress in the trial could be made due to abscondence of accused
Accused appeared to be hardened and desperate criminal
Prosecution witnesses had supported the version of complainant in their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.
Sufficient incriminating evidence was available on record against the accused to connect them with the commission of offence
Accused were not entitled to the concession of bails at this early stage
Accused had been found involved and declared guilty in the commission of offence during investigation
Nothing was on record that false criminal proceedings had been initiated against the accused with mala fide intention and ulterior motive of the complainant
Bail petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
HAFIZ SHAHID NADEEM KAHLOON, J.
Muhammad Shafi & Allah Bakhsh, the accused-petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case FIR No.161-2013 dated 16.06.2013, registered under Sections 302, 148/149 & 109, P.P.C., at Police Station Kala, District D.G. Khan.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioners is that at the time of occurrence, they raised commanding lakara to their co-accused, who were already armed with Kalashnikovs, make firing upon Ghulam Akbar, etc. for committing their murder, so they resorted firing desperately as a result of which three persons namely Ghulam Akbar, Ghulam Hussain and Ijaz Hussain lost their lives.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Admittedly, the petitioners are nominated accused of the FIR with specific role of raising commanding lalkara to their co-accused and facilitating them for the commission of offence. There-after Ghulam Shabbir son of petitioner No.2 and Nazim, grand-son co-accused of petitioners resorted firing resulting into death of three innocent persons. It is mentioned in the FIR that the petitioners were present at the scene of occurrence while making lalkara and as such offence under Section 114, P.P.C. is made out. The motive is also attributed to the present petitioners.
5. The petitioners willfully remained fugitive from law for about one year and seven months and they were declared proclaimed offenders after initiating the proceedings under Section 87/88, Cr.P.C. and challan under Section 512, Cr.P.C. against them has been submitted before the learned trial Court and there is no progress in the trial due to their abscondance. More-over, Ashiq son and Nazim grand-son of petitioner No.1 and Ghulam Shabbir son of petitioner No.2 are still proclaimed offenders.
6. Prima-facie, the petitioners appear to be hardened and desperate criminal mind, who have rightly been involved by the complainant in this case. All the prosecution witnesses fully supported the version of the complainant in their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Sufficient incriminating evidence is available on record against the petitioners to connect them with the offence committed by them, In such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail at this early stage. In this regard, reliance can be placed reported as "Zafar Hussain. v. The State and another" (2014 SCMR 1591), "Khalida Bibi. v. Nadeem Baig." (PLD 2009 S.C. 440) and "Chiragh Din and others. v. The State" (PLD 1967 SC 340).
7. During the investigation, the petitioners have been found fully involved and declared guilty in the commission of crime. There is nothing on record that false criminal proceedings have initiated against the petitioners with mala fide intent on and ulterior motive of the complainant as the motive is also attributed to them.
8. Case law referred by learned counsel for the petitioners reported as "Muhammad Aslam. v. Nazar Khan and another" (2012 SCMR 138) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of above circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners and resultantly, the instant bail petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed. ZC/M-322/L Bail refused.