MLD 2008

2008 PLP 102 (MLD)

LIAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2005-July-27
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 PLP 102 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties LIAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 102 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 102 (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: 2008 PLP 102 (MLD) (LIAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)

Representation

  • M. Mahrban Ranjha for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34

Bail, grant of

Accused was empty handed while co-accused were armed with pistols

Question as to whether the accused had shared common intention with co-accused in commission of offence needed further inquiry

Accused had not caused any injury to the deceased and the only injury allegedly caused by him to a prosecution witness fell within the purview of S.337-A(ii), P.P.C. which was a bailable offence

Accused was behind the bars for the last more than ten months and he could not be kept in jail for an indefinite period, as the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future

Bail could not be withheld as a punishment

Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Liaqat Ali petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.118 of 2004, dated 14-9-2004 registered under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Budhla Sant, Multan.

2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner empty handed along with other co-accused while armed with different weapons launched a murderous assault upon the complainant injuring Muhammad Wazir and one Mst. Siani Mai was died during the said incident for having a grudge that Mst. Siani Mai the real mother of co-accused Rafiq and Hanif had married with complainant's father.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Muhammad Wazir has not contracted second marriage and he was keeping Mst. Siani Mai without contracting marriage. It is also contended that the petitioner admittedly was empty handed and even otherwise the injury attributed to the petitioner with the brick on the forehead of Muhammad Wazir was declared as Shajjah-i-Mudihah and falls within the purview of section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. and whether he shared the common intention or not is a question of further inquiry.

4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, opposes this application on the ground that the petitioner is named in the FIR. with specific role of causing injury to Muhammad Wazir and also vicariously liable for the murder of Mst. Siani Mai. Moreover, the offence falls within the prohibitory clause.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Admittedly, when the petitioner came to the place of occurrence was empty handed while Muhammad Hanif and Rafiq, who are real sons of deceased Mst. Siani Mai, the co-accused were armed with pistols. Whether the petitioner shared the common intention with the co-accused in the commission of offence or not, is a question of further inquiry. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased and only one injury attributed on the person of Muhammad Wazir, who allegedly was illegally and unlawfully keeping Mst. Siani Mia in his house without contracting any marriage only falls within the purview of section 337-A(ii), P.P.C., which is a bailable offence. The petitioner is behind the bars since 16-9-2004, who cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period as there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in the near future and bail cannot be withheld as a punishment if otherwise the case is found to be of further inquiry as is held in PLD 1992 SC

81. Hence, this application is accepted and the petitioner shall be released from jail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. N.H.Q./L-140/L Bail allowed.