YLR 2011

2011 PLP 573 (YLR)

MAHMOOD KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 432-M of 2010 In Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2009, decided on 24th August, 2010.
Honorable Judges
Kh. Imtiaz Ahmad and Syed Akhlaq Ahmad, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2011 PLP 573 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Kh. Imtiaz Ahmad and Syed Akhlaq Ahmad, JJ
Parties MAHMOOD KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 573 (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 2011 PLP 573 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Kh. Imtiaz Ahmad and Syed Akhlaq Ahmad, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 573 (YLR) (MAHMOOD KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Syed Hamid Ali Bukhari for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 426

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/147/149

Anti-Terrorism Act (XX VII of 1997), S. 7

Qatl-e-amd, attempt to qatl-e-amd and terrorism

Suspension of sentence, petition for

Co- accused with similar role of indiscriminate firing upon injured prosecution witnesses, having been admitted to bail, accused had also become, entitled to the concession of bail on the principle of rule of consistency

Accused had not been assigned any specific role of causing injury to the deceased

Recovery of .12 bore carbine though had been effected from accused, but it was without matching

Accused was behind the bars for the last more than six years and there was no chance of early fixation of main appeal for hearing before the High Court

Sentence of accused was suspended, in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Waheed Khan, D.P.G. for the State. Tanvir Iqbal Khan for the Complainant.

Judgment & Decree

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 432-M of 2010. Through this C.M., Raja Muhammad Saddique/petitioner seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Rawalpindi vide his judgment dated 24-11-2009 in case F.I.R. No. 243 dated 14-11-2004 under sections 302/324/ 147/149, P.P.C. and 7 ATA registered at Police Station Kalar Syedan District Rawalpindi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C., and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased persons. In default of payment, he was to further undergo 3 months' S.I. with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended that the petitioner has not been assigned any specific role of causing injury to the deceased or the injured P.Ws. Although recovery of .12 bore Carbine has been affected from the petitioner yet it is without matching. Co-convict Abdul Majeed with similar role has already been admitted to bail by this Bench vide order dated 15-6-2010. The petitioner is behind the bar for the last more than six years and there is no chance of early fixation of main appeal for hearing before this Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be suspended and he be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned D.P.-G. for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the C.M. 5.Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. Admittedly co-convict Abdul Majeed with similar role of indiscriminate firing upon the injured P.Ws. has been admitted to bail by this Bench vide order dated 15-6-2010. This being so, the' petitioner has also become entitled to the concession of bail on the principle of rule of consistency. The petitioner has not been assigned any specific role of causing injury to the deceased. Although recovery of .12 bore Carbine has been effected from the petitioner yet it is without matching. The petitioner is behind the bar for the last more than six years and there is no chance of early fixation of main appeal for hearing before this Court. We, therefore, allow this application under section 426, Cr.P.C. and suspend the sentence of Muhammad Saddique/petitioner subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

7. The petitioner is directed to appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing till the final disposal of main appeal. H.B.T./M-504/L Sentence suspended.