2002 PLP 727 (YLR)
HAMAYUN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 727 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | HAMAYUN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 727 (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 2002 PLP 727 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 727 (YLR) (HAMAYUN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Ahmad Malik with Mian Abdul Munim for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑ Accused had been found innocent in three successive investigations and his name had been placed in Column No. 2 of report under S.173, Cr. P. C. ‑‑‑No recovery was effected from the accused‑‑‑According to police investigation, accused was present at his house about fifteen minutes before occurrence‑‑‑Case of accused prima facie being of further inquiry within meaning of S. 497(2), Cr. P. C. he was admitted to bail. 1970 SCMR 299 and NLR Cr. C. 704 ref. Rana Munir Ahmad Khan for the Complainant. Masood Sadiq Mirza for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Twelve accused were named in the F.I.R. which was lodged by Zulfiqar for the murder of his brother Mustafa. The occurrence in the instant case had taken place at 8‑00 a.m. while the matter was reported at 8‑35 a.m. According to Police investigation, three accused are absconders while five are in jail and two namely Imran and Sahib Dad are on bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that murder case is already pending between the parties because one of the near relation of the petitioner's party was murdered by the present complainant party. Further submits that petitioner has been found innocent during three successive investigation and his name has been placed in column No.2 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Adds that no recovery was affected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has placed reliance on 1970 SCMR 299 and NLR (sic) Cr.C.704 to submit that case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that occurrence having taken place in broad daylight the matter was reported to the Police promptly with specific allegation against the petitioner and his co‑accused. Further submits that mere non‑recovery of weapon of offence and opinion of the Police declaring the petitioner as innocent is no ground to allow bail to the petitioner when the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
4. Muhammad Bashir S.I. who claims to be Investigating Officer submits that according to statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, persons, namely, Kashif and Zubair took part in the murder of Mustafa. Learned counsel for the State submits that if this is the position as submitted by the Investigating Officer, then it is a case of further inquiry.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the Police file. The petitioner has been found innocent in three successive investigations and his name has been placed in column. No.2 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. No recovery was affected from him. According to Police investigation the petitioner was present at his house at about 7- 45 a.m. or so. To this effect, tie Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the witnesses. In my view, prima facie case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./H‑89/L Bail allowed.