2010 PLP 984 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SAJID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 984 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAJID — Petitioner 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 984 (MLD)?
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 984 (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: 2010 PLP 984 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SAJID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34
Qatl-e-amd and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd
Accused was empty-handed at the relevant time and only allegation of "Japha" had been attributed to accused
According to the Police investigation, accused was though present at the place of occurrence, but he had not committed any offence
Main accused had already been granted bail and role of accused was lesser than the role attributed to said co- accused
Accused had not caused any injury to the deceased and was behind the bars for the last about 6 months and he was no more required to the Police for the purpose of further investigation
Challan had been submitted in the Trial Court, but no progress had been made
Judgment & Decree
JAMSHED RAHMAT ULLAH, J.
Through this petition the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 12 of 2009, dated 1 -1-2009, registered under sections 302, 324, 34, P.P.C., at the Police Station Tulamba District Khanewal, with the allegation that the petitioner made a "Japha" to injured Muhammad Hussainan, brother of the complainant, when he was coming in a street towards his house and co-accused of the petitioner has inflicted injury on the person of the deceased.
2. The leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. Further contends that Muhammad Waqas the main accused of the case has already been granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 21-5-2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1469-B of 2009 and the role of the present petitioner is lesser than the role attributed to the co-accused. Further contents that the only allegation to "japha" has been attributed to the petitioner. Further contends that according to the police investigation, the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but he has not committed any offence. Learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Amjad Hussain and another v. The State (2007 PCr.LJ 1137) and Rasheed Ahmed v. The State (NLR 2000 Criminal 514).
3. Conversely, the learned DPG appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail petition contending, that the petitioner is involved in an heinous offence with specific role. Further contends that the case of the co-accused who has already been granted bail by this Court is quite distinguishable to the case of present petitioner, as the co-accused was granted bail only on the basis of a tender age and his case falls under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly the present petitioner was empty handed at the relevant time and only allegation of Japha has been attributed to the petitioner. According to the police investigation, the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but he has not committed any offence. Muhammad Waqas the main accused of the case has already been granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 21-5-2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1469-B of 2009 and the role of the present petitioner is lesser than the role attributed to the co-accused. The petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and is no more required to the police for the purpose of further investigation. The challan has been submitted in the trial Court but no progress has been made as yet.
6. For the foregoing reasons this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-222/L Bail granted.