2007 PLP 1281 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD KHALID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1281 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHALID — 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 1281 (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 2007 PLP 1281 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1281 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD KHALID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Pervez Aftab for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 109, 148 & 149
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13
F.I.R. had not mentioned as to what weapon accused was carrying
Fire caused by accused did not hit either deceased or any of prosecution witnesses
No recovery was effected from accused during investigation and according to findings of the police, accused was empty-handed
Case of accused, in circumstances fell within the provisions of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., which needed further probe and inquiry
Trial had commenced, but rule of propriety could not defeat statutory right of accused
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Mehar Muhammad Saleem for the State with Muhammad Tariq, A.S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.
Muhammad Khalid, petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.155, registered at Police Station, New Multan, on 13-3-2005, for offences under sections 302/148/149/109, P.P.C., read with section-13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965).
2. According to F.I.R., the petitioner and six other, accused, who were armed with deadly weapons launched criminal assault upon the complainant party, while they were going back to their houses on 13-3-2005 at 8-50 p.m. The fire caused by Muhammad Ayub, accused by Repeater Gun hit Akbar Ali, brother of the complainant, who died at the spot. However, according to F.I.R. Ayub also lost his life due to firing caused by rest of the accused.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that it has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. as to what weapon the petitioner was carrying while the weapons carried by Muhammad Ayub (deceased accused), Abdul Majeed, Ali, Ismail and Khan Haider, accused have been specified. Undeniably, the fire caused by the petitioner did not hit either to the deceased or any of the P.Ws. during investigation no recovery was effected from him rather according to findings of the police the petitioner was empty-handed. In, these circumstances, the case of the petitioner falls within the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and needs further probe and inquiry. I am conscious of the fact that the trial has commenced but the rule of propriety cannot defeat the statutory right of the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafiq and others PLD 1989 SC
585. Thus, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees One Lac, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-650/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.