2010 PLP 1031 (MLD)
ZAFAR and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1031 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAFAR and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1031 (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 2010 PLP 1031 (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: 2010 PLP 1031 (MLD) (ZAFAR and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Abbas Khan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/148/149
Qatl-e- amd and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd
According to F.I.R., mere ineffective firing was attributed to accused persons
No role qua the deceased or injured was ascribed to them
Question of vicarious liability for the qatl-e-amd of the deceased and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd was to be gone into at the trial
Case of accused, in circumstances, was covered within the mischief of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into their guilt
Accused were stated to be non-convicts
Trial though had commenced, but when case of accused could otherwise be found fit for bail, then mere commencement of trial could not come as a clog in the way of the same
Judgment & Decree
CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.
Petitioners Zafar and Sher Zaman by way of the instant petition have prayed for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 220 registered under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. with Police Station Jandanwala, District Bhakkar on 11-11-2009.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. is that on 11-11-2009 at about 2-00 p.m. Saif Ullah and others, having fire-arms, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them, have committed the qatl-e-amd of Mst. Kanizan Bibi and attempted the qatl-e-amd of Mst. Farzana Bibi, by firing on them with their respective weapons.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that according to the F.I.R., mere effective firing is attributed to them. No role qua the deceased or the said injured is ascribed to them. The question, thus of their vicarious liability for the, qatl-e-amd of the deceased and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd of Mst. Farzana Bibi is to be gone into at trial.
4. Their case, therefore, is covered within the mischief of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into their guilt.
5. They are behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convicts, which has not been controverted by the other side. However, it has been argued by the side of the complainant that their trial has commenced and so, at such a stage, it may not be appropriate to enlarge them on bail.
6. I am afraid that perhaps such submission is not tenable in view of the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 585). It has been held by their lordships in that case that when case of an accused may, otherwise, be found fit for bail, then mere commencement of trial cannot come as clog in the way of the same.
7. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit them to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. However, it is hereby clarified that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial. H.B.T./Z-12/L Bail granted.