2007 PLP 937 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD USMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 937 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD USMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 937 (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 2007 PLP 937 (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: 2007 PLP 937 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD USMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Sami Hayat for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302
Alleged delay in lodging F.LR. had been fully explained
Charge against accused, who remained absconder, was that he came along with his co-accused and opened attack and fired at deceased which hit on the thigh of deceased
Accused had remained absconder
Recovery had been effected from accused
Offence against accused fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
No ground for grant of bail having been made out, bail petition of accused, was dismissed. Kashif Sohail Ghaus for the State along with Naeem, S.I.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is 12 hours delay in - lodging the F.I.R.; that only injury attributed to the petitioner is on the thigh of the deceased; that he has' been falsely implicated in this case; that he has no motive to commit the murder of the deceased and that the motive is attributed to the co-accused; that no recovery has been effected from him; that the deceased died 22 days after the occurrence; that two co-accused have been granted bail; that in fact there are 15 injuries on the person of the deceased but the same have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. and that case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand learned State Counsel submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that he is the person who opened the fire upon which the co-accused fired at the deceased; that pistol has been recovered from him; that Injuries Nos.5 to 11 are wound of surgical and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. Heard. I have gone through the F.I.R., post-mortem report and impugned order. As far as delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned, same has been explained in the F.I.R. because first of all the complainant was busy in order to save the life of the deceased and he remained busy for his treatment. He is the person who came along with his co-accused and opened the attack and fired at the deceased which hit on the thigh of the deceased. He remained absconder. Recovery has been effected from him. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No ground for bail is made out. This petition stands dismissed. H.B.T./M-642/L Bail refused.