2007 PLP 882 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 882 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 882 (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 2007 PLP 882 (MLD)?
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: 2007 PLP 882 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rai Haider Ali Khan Kharl for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 440, 109, 148 & 149
Allegation against accused was that at his instigation/abetment, his co-accused had committed the murder of deceased
Contents of F.I.R. had revealed that accused and his co-accused were heard by prosecution witnesses, while conspiring for commission of offence; and said witnesses had heard them when they, were passing near the house of co-accused
Mode and manner in which allegedly prosecution witnesses had heard accused and his co-accused conspiring the commission of that offence, was unnatural and doubtful
Case of a conspirator or abettor, not present at the spot, was on the better footing than that of accused instigating his companion to commit the crime being himself present at the spot and normally those accused were admitted to bail by the courts on the principle of further inquiry
Case of accused, in circumstances fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was behind the bars since long and Agency had not submitted challan
Further incarceration of accused, in the circumstances of the case would not serve any purpose
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.
Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.30 of 2006, dated 29-1-2006 for the offence under sections 302/440/109/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Aimandad, Gujranwala.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused Shafqat Mehmod had abetted their other co-accused find mention in the F.I.R. to commit the murder of Muhammad Riaz, who on the night falling in-between 28/29-1-2006 had accomplished the' mission within the area of village Hameedpur Khurd, Police Station, Aimandad, District Gujranwala. During the investigation petitioner was arrested on 22-2-2006. Bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala 'vide order, dated 14-6-2006, hence this petition.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have observed that the precise allegation against the petitioner is that at his instigation/abetment his co-accused had committed the murder Muhammad Riaz. The contents of the F.I.R. reveal that petitioner and his co-accused Shafqat Mehmood were heard by Basharat and Ghulam Murtaza P.Ws. while conspiring for the commission of this offence and the said witnesses had heard them when they were passing near the house of Shafqat co-accused. Not only the mode and manner in which allegedly prosecution witnesses had heard the petitioner and his co-accused conspiring the commission of this offence is unnatural and doubtful, it is well-settled that the case of a conspirator or abettor not present at the spot is on the better footing than that of the accused instigating his companion to commit the crime being himself present at the spot and normally those accused are admitted to bail by the Courts on the principle of further inquiry (Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State and another PLD 1996 Supreme Court 241). In this view of the matter, case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry and falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Petitioner is behind the bars since 22-2-2006 and admittedly agency has not yet submitted challan. Further incarceration of the petitioner in the circumstances of the case would not serve any purpose. Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds amount to Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Court. H.B.T./M-145/L Bail granted.