2016 PLP 2094 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 2094 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Amir Hani Muslim, Umar Ata Bandial and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM 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 2094 (SCMR)?
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 2094 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Amir Hani Muslim, Umar Ata Bandial and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 2094 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM 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 Samar Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Shahid Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Tasneem Amin, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2.
- 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, learned Law Officer and perusing the available record with their assistance, it has been noted by us that petitioners are specifically named in the FIR. Specific role of firing at the deceased has been assigned to them. The petitioners, as confirmed by the learned Law Officer, remained fugitive from law for about 08 months. In the circumstances, the police opinion regarding their absence at the time of occurrence has not found by us to be based on solid reasons. Even otherwise, it is for the learned trial Court to determine after recording evidence pro and contra as to whether the petitioners were present at the spot at the time of unfortunate incident or not. The trial of the case has already commenced and statements of some of the prosecution witnesses have since been recorded. In the circumstance, we are of the view that petitioners have not been able to make out a case for grant of bail.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 18-3-2016 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 2490-B of 2016)
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148 & 149
Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly
Accused and co-accused were specifically named in the FIR and specific role of firing at the deceased had been assigned to them
Accused and co-accused remained fugitive from law for about 8 months
In such circumstances, the police opinion regarding their non-presence at the scene of occurrence did not seem to be based on solid reasons
Even otherwise, it was for the Trial Court to determine after recording evidence as to whether the accused and co-accused were present at the spot at the time of occurrence
Trial of the case had already commenced and statements of some of the prosecution witnesses had since been recorded
Case for grant of bail was not made out in circumstances
Accused and co-accused were refused bail accordingly. Rana Abdul Majeed, Additional P.-G. and Abdul Ghaffar, ASI for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.
Petitioners seek bail after arrest in case FIR No. 51 dated 16.02.2015, offence under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at P.S. Saddar, District Bhakkar.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioners, as per the FIR, is that they along with their co-accused, while armed with pistols .30 bore attacked the complainant party. Co-accused Abid Hussain raised lalkara to avenge the murder of his brother and fired, multiple shots which hit the deceased Nazir Hussain @ Papu on various parts of his body. The fire shot by petitioner No. 1 Muhammad Aslam hit the deceased on his ribs on the right side whereas the fire shot by petitioner No.2 Khizar Abbas hit the deceased on his left cheek.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, learned Law Officer and perusing the available record with their assistance, it has been noted by us that petitioners are specifically named in the FIR. Specific role of firing at the deceased has been assigned to them. The petitioners, as confirmed by the learned Law Officer, remained fugitive from law for about 08 months. In the circumstances, the police opinion regarding their absence at the time of occurrence has not found by us to be based on solid reasons. Even otherwise, it is for the learned trial Court to determine after recording evidence pro and contra as to whether the petitioners were present at the spot at the time of unfortunate incident or not. The trial of the case has already commenced and statements of some of the prosecution witnesses have since been recorded. In the circumstance, we are of the view that petitioners have not been able to make out a case for grant of bail.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition having no merit is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. MWA/M-68/SC Bail refused.