2013 PLP 725 (YLR)
NAZIR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 725 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, J |
| Parties | NAZIR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 725 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 725 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 725 (YLR) (NAZIR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Naeem Akhtar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 337-A (ii) & 34
Qatl-e-amd, shajjah-i-mudihah, common intention
Accused along with the co-accused was alleged to have murdered the deceased
Accused was specifically alleged to have held a hatchet with which he gave a blow behind the ear of the deceased
Contentions of the accused were that no such injury as ascribed to him existed in the post-mortem report, and that there was contradiction in medical evidence and ocular account, which made present case one of further inquiry
Role of causing injury ascribed to the accused had not been found in the postmortem examination report and prima facie there was incoherence between ocular account and medical evidence
Mere commencement of trial was by itself no ground for refusing bail
Case was one of further inquiry and accused was granted bail accordingly.
S. 497(4)
Scope
Effect
Mere commencement of trial by itself was no ground for refusing bail, as S. 497(4), Cr.P.C, was very much clear in stating that bail could be granted at any stage even before pronouncement of the judgment. Zafar Iqbal Chohan for the Complainant with Ghulam Hussain Kazmi, A.S.-I. with record.
Judgment & Decree
MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.
Petitioner Nazir seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered against him and three others for the alleged murder of Manzoor Ahmad on the complaint of Muhammad Hayat.
2. Specific ascription against the petitioner is that he was holding a hatchet, gave a blow with the same hitting behind the left ear of the deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no such injury exits as per postmortem report of the deceased and un-liking of the ocular account with medical evidence which cannot be abridged, makes out a case of further inquiry in favour of the petitioner and that he is entitled for grant of bail.
4. Learned D.P.-G. assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail on the grounds that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and the dimension of the injury on the occipital region of the deceased, prima facie, shows that it was not the result of specific blow and might be more than one, in this way, when the petitioner had held a hatchet and the injury has been found to have been caused with a sharp-edged weapon and to appreciate this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, would amount to compel the Court to go deep in the merits of the case and this practice is not desirable at this stage. Learned counsel for the complainant has also referred the injury sheet of the deceased, according to which, more than two injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. Lastly it has been submitted that the trial has commenced and it would be better to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It has been noticed that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and the role of causing injury ascribed to him has not been found in the Postmortem Examination Report and prima facie, there is incoherence in between the ocular and medical evidence and this fact also makes out a case of further inquiry for grant of bail to the petitioner.
7. Mere commencing of trial by itself is no ground for refusing bail, as, phraseology of subsection (4) of section 497, Cr.P.C. is very much clear that the bail can be granted at any stage even before the pronouncement of the judgment.
8. For what has been discussed above, instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail provided his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
9. Observations mentioned op-cit shall be regarded as tentative in nature. MWA/N-52/L Bail granted.