2010 PLP 689 (YLR)
UMAR HAYAT and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 689 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Saeed Ejaz, J |
| Parties | UMAR HAYAT and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 689 (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 2010 PLP 689 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Saeed Ejaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 689 (YLR) (UMAR HAYAT and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioners.
- Sh. Imtiaz Ahmad, D.P.G. with Muhammad Hussain, S.-I. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 148 & 149
Qatl-i-amd
Accused persons though were named in F.I.R., but no specific injury was attributed to any of them
Medical report also had shown that only one injury was sustained by the deceased and said injury was attributed to co-accused
No weapon was recovered from accused persons
Enmity inter se the parties was established from the fact that on an earlier occasion also an F.I.R. had been lodged against accused persons for causing injuries to complainant party
In view of the prior animosity between the parties, false involvement of accused persons in the case could not be ruled out, especially when neither any injury was attributed to them nor any recovery had been effected from them
Case against accused was squarely covered by S.497(2), Cr.P.C.
Accused were behind the bars for quite sometime and their confinement in jail for an indefinite period without trial, would amount to punishing them before trial, which was neither mandate nor spirit of law
Accused were admitted to bail in circumstances. Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK SAEED EJAZ, J.
Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.154 dated 19-7-2008 under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. Police Station Ghazi Abad.
2. Allegation against the petitioners is that they along with co-accused Zakir, etc. launched attack upon Riaz deceased with fire arms.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that although they are named in the F.I.R., but no weapon of offence has been recovered from them and that even no role is attributed to them.
4. Conversely, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed this petition by arguing that another F.I.R. was also got lodged against the petitioner by Jehangir under section 324, P.P.C. for causing injuries to Mansha, Ghulam Mustafa, and others and this is second attempt for murder of Riaz, therefore, presence of the petitioners at the scene of occurrence is established.
5. Heard, Record perused.
6. It is admitted fact that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. but no specific injury is attributed to either of them. The medical report also shows that only one injury was sustained by Riaz deceased and said injury is attributed to Zakir co-accused. It is not controverted that no weapon was recovered from the petitioners. Enmity inter se the parties is established from the fact that earlier also, an F.I.R. had been lodged by Jehangir against Gul Sher and others for causing injuries to Mansha and Ghulam Mustafa. In view of the prior animosity between the parties, false involvement of the petitioners in the instant case cannot be ruled out, especially when neither any injury is attributed to them nor any recovery has been effected from them. As such, case against the petitioner is squarely covered by section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Furthermore, they are behind the bars for quite some long and their confinement in jail for an indefinite period without trial, would amount to punishing them before trial, which is neither the mandate nor spirit of law. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and petitioners are admitted to bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./U-2/L Bail granted.