PCRLJ 2001

2001 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD SADIQ and 4 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2000-November-15
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2001 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties MUHAMMAD SADIQ and 4 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 P Cr (PLP)?

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: 2001 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ and 4 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Tahir Mehmood for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/337-A(ii)/337-F(ii)/ 148/149

Bail

Case was one of free fight in which both the parties had received injuries and persons from both sides had been arrested by the police--None of the accused had caused any injury to the deceased-- Punishment for the offences allegedly committed by the accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

Case being of cross -version arising from the same incident, one given by the complainant in the F.I.R. and the other given by opposite-party, the same was covered by the principle of further inquiry

Parties were closely related to each other and compromise between them was likely to be effected

Accused were admitted to bail in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

This order will dispose of three bail applications bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.2523/B of 2000, 2230/B of 2000 and 2432/B of 2000 moved by Noor Ahmad son of Yousaf Ali, Suleman son of Malak Bashara, Abdul Rehman and Allah Rakhia sons of Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Ashraf son of Ashiq Ali. Yaseen son of Ata Muhammad, Muhammad Sadiq son of Muhammad Ali, Javed son of Ghulam Qadir, Maqsood son of Yousaf Ali, Azhar Hussain and Abid Hussain sons of Ghulam Mustafa respectively.

2. Petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case F. I. R. No. 170 of 2000, dated 1-6-2000 registered under sections 302/324/337-A(ii)/337-F(ii)/148/ 149, P.P.C. at Police Station City Rajanpur. 3.According to the F.I.R., on 1-6-2000 at about 9-00 a.m. Abdul Rehman being armed with hatchet, Allah Rakhia being armed with Sota. Muhammad Saleem being armed with Sota, Yaseen being armed with Chhuri, Muhammad Hussain being armed with Sota caused injuries to the complainant party while forming unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common intention. Statedly, Abdul Rehman gave hatchet blow to Muhammad Usman on his head, to Maqsood on his head and to Javed on his forehead. Muhammad Saleem caused Sota blow to Muhammad Suleman on different parts of his body. Yaseen gave Chhuri blow to Ghulam Mustafa on his head and chin. Muhammad Hussain gave Sota blow on the left hand of Muhammad Suleman. Allah Rakhia gave Sota blow on the left wrist of Muhammad Usman and on the left hand of Maqsood. During the investigation, cross-version was also brought on the record in which Ghulam Mustafa, Muhammad Sadiq, Javed, Noor Muhammad, Maqsood, Azher. Abid Usman and Muhammad Suleman were arraigned as accused persons. Statedly, Ghulam Mustafa was armed with Kassi whereas rest of the accused persons were armed with hatchets. Ghulam Mustafa caused injuries on the head of Muhammad Saleem deceased. Muhammad Sadiq statedly caused hatchet blow on the head of Abdul Rehman laved petitioner gave hatchet blow on the head of Muhammad Hussain. Noor Muhammad caused hatchet blow on the head of Abdul Rehman whereas Maqsood gave hatchet blow on the head of Allah Rakhia, Azhar and Abid also caused injuries on the head of Allah Rakhia. Muhammad Usman caused hatchet blow on the head of Abdul Rehman. During the investigation, Muhammad Ashraf was also arrested alongwith the other accused persons who were nominated in the F.I.R. "The petitioners were arrested in this case and their post-arrest bail applications were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajanpur vide order, dated 13-9-2000, hence, these petitions.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. The bare perusal of F.I.R. shows that it was a case of free fight in which both the parties received injuries. During the investigation, this fact was also established and persons from both the sides were arrested in this case. Admittedly, none of the petitioners caused any injury to the deceased and the punishment for the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Similarly as observed by their Lordships in case title Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others 1996 SCMR 1845, in cases of cross-version arising from same incident, one given by the complainant in F.I.R. and the other given by opposite party, such cases are covered under the principle of further enquiry.

6. Learned counsel .for both the sides submit that if the petitioners are admitted to bail, there is possibility of compromise among the parties as they are closely related to each other.

7. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, all the three above numbered bail applications are allowed and the petitioners as mentioned in the first para. of this order, are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. N.H.Q./M-436/L Bail allowed.