2012 PLP 556 (SCMR)
MUMTAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 556 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Mian Hamid Farooq, JJ |
| Parties | MUMTAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 556 (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 2012 PLP 556 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Mian Hamid Farooq, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 556 (SCMR) (MUMTAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Rab Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Anwar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner
- Date of hearing: 24th December, 2008.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order dated 12-11-2008 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.10264-B of 2008).
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Qatl-e-amd and common intention
Medical and ocular account
Conflict
Plea raised by accused was that there was conflict in medical and ocular account
Accused was prima facie connected with the offence alleged in F.I.R.
Conflict between medical and ocular account could not be appreciated without a deeper appraisal of evidence and the same was not warranted at bail stage
Bail was refused. Zafarullah, S.-I., Police Station Chenab Nagar, Jhang for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.20 dated 25-1-2008 under section 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Chenab Nagar, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang, wherein the allegation against the petitioner is that on the fateful day and time he armed with a rifle and his co-accused armed with a double barreled gun attacked Muhammad Mumtaz. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he fired at Muhammad Mumtaz which hit on his right flank and the same proved fatal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that there is a conflict between the medical evidence and ocular account inasmuch as although the petitioner as per the F.I.R. was allegedly armed with a rifle yet the injury received by the deceased appears to be a pallet wound. Refers to a judgment of this Court reported as "Mst. Irshad Begum v. Muhammad Afzal and another (1985 SCMR 1691)" to contend that commencement of trial may not be treated as a bar for the grant of bail if the case is otherwise made out.
3. There is no cavil to the proposition and the ratio laid down in the afore-referred precedent case law. However, having gone through the F.I.R. and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, prima facie, he is connected with the alleged offence and the argument qua the conflict between medical evidence and the ocular account cannot be appreciated without a deeper appraisal of evidence which is not warranted at bail stage.
4. In the afore-referred circumstances, we do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and bail refused. M.H./M-8/SC Bail refused.