2006 PLP 446 (MLD)
MUZAFFAR IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 446 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUZAFFAR IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 446 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 446 (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: 2006 PLP 446 (MLD) (MUZAFFAR IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Allah Bakhsh Gondal for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-F(v), 337-L(ii), 148, 149 & 109
Accused had already spent three and half months in jail and trial had -not commenced
Maximum punishment provided in offences against accused, was five years and accused had spent more than three months in jail
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.
This after arrest bail application has been filed in F.I.R. No.31 of 2005, dated 26-2-2005, under sections '337-F(v), 337-L(ii), 148, 149, 109, P.P.C. at Police Station Miana Gondal, M.B. Din.
2. Briefly according to the F.I.R., petitioner caused injuries with butt of .12 bore gun on the left arm of the complainant, Naseem Bibi while co-accused caused injuries to witnesses.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the injuries alleged against the petitioner do not constitute case covered by the prohibitory clause. The maximum punishment provided is five years. He also submits that there is a delay of two days. The learned counsel contends that a cross-version has also been reported by the petitioner side and finally that civil litigation is pending regarding the land where occurrence is reported to have taken place.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that it is not an absolute role that cases which fall within non-prohibitory clause must be considered fit to be granted bail. He submits that role of the petitioner is clearly mentioned as specific injuries attributed to him. He also submits that petitioner and his co-accused caused several injuries to the injured person mentioned in the F.I.R. The challan has already been submitted and charge has been framed. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that recovery has been effected in this case.
5. The learned counsel for the State also adopts arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was arrested on 21-3-2005, nearly 3-1/2 months have already been spent by him in the jail. The trial has not commenced. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended and referred to 2000 PCr.LJ 291 to argue that in every case in which the offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause bail is not always granted. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that normally in cases which do not fall within prohibitory clause bail is granted as a rule and its refusal is an exception. I think that the present petitioner does not fall in exceptional category. The maximum punishment is provided in these offences is five years and the petitioner spent more than three months in jail. The cross-version of the occurrence is also on record. In view of the above, this bail application is allowed subject to petitioner's furnishing surety bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-1338/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.