2008 PLP 1980 (YLR)
SHAMEERA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1980 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Jehangir Arshad, J |
| Parties | SHAMEERA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1980 (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 2008 PLP 1980 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Jehangir Arshad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1980 (YLR) (SHAMEERA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Jafar Tayyar Bokhari for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 337-H(ii), 337-F(i), 148 & 149
Accused, per contents of the F.I.R. was not attributed any injury and his role was only that he was present at the spot and fled away after ineffective firing
Challan had been submitted, but trial was not likely to commence in near future for the reason that co-accused, who were four in number were absconding
No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused behind the bars as same would amount to .punishing him without trial which was against the principles of natural justice
Vicarious liability of accused to the extent of offence under S.337-H(ii), P.P. C. was one which needed further inquiry in the absence of any specific attribution of injury to accused in the F.I.R.
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for the Complainant. Muhammad Riaz Aura with Waseem Inspector and Imtiaz Ahmed along with Judicial Record.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.267, dated 22-9-2001 under sections 324, 337-H(ii), 337-F(i), 148, 149, P.P.C. Police Station Dera Rahim District Sahiwal.
2. The allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is that he along with co-accused by forming unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common intention while armed with deadly weapons entered the house of the complainant. Akram and Ashraf co-accused of the petitioner put complainant's father on the cot and when he was crying Muhammad Aslam another co-accused of the petitioner chopped off his nose' and left ear and also injured his finger. It is further alleged that petitioner along with his co-accused only resorted to ineffective firing and fled away from the spot.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was present at the time of occurrence and that he made ineffective firing, no injury is attributed to him and that the allegation of recovery of weapon during course of investigation is false, inasmuch as there is no mention in the F.I.R. that petitioner was having pistol at the time of occurrence. It is next argued that vicarious liability of the petitioner to the extent of section 337-H(ii), P.P.C. is one open to further inquiry and that he is behind the bars since 10-3-2006 learned counsel further contends that only incomplete challan has been submitted against the petitioner but trial is not likely to commence in near future as two of the co-accused of the petitioner are still absconding.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State counsel has opposed this petition by arguing that petitioner acted in furtherance of common intention with his co-accused, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail, especially when according to learned counsel, the petitioner had been absconding for the last five years and was arrested only on 10-3-2006, whereas, instant occurrence took place on 22-9-2001. Further that in case the petitioner is allowed bail he is also likely to abscond.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Per contents of the F.I.R. the petitioner is not attributed any injury and his role is only that he was present at the spot and fled away after ineffective firing. Challan has been submitted but trial is not likely to commence in near future for the reason that co-accused of the petitioner four in number, are absconding and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars as same would amount to punishing him without trial which is against the principles of natural justice. Vicarious liability of the petitioner to the extent of offence under section 337-H (ii), P.P.C. is one of further inquiry in the absence of any specific attribution of injury to the petitioner in the F.I.R. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like 44 amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./S-37/L Bail granted.