2010 PLP 2446 (YLR)
ATTIQUE-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 2446 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Hasnat Ahmad Khan, J |
| Parties | ATTIQUE-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 2446 (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 2446 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Hasnat Ahmad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 2446 (YLR) (ATTIQUE-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Najamul Saqib Rai for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(iii)/337-A(I)/336/34
Mutala himah, Shajjah-i-Khafifah, Itlaf-i-Salahiyyat-i-Udw
Serious allegation was levelled against accused of causing five stab wounds to the injured prosecution witness with a dagger on the vital organs
One of the injuries caused by accused attracted the provisions of S.336, P.P.C., which fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Prosecution story, prima facie was corroborated by the statement of injured prosecution witness as well as the medical evidence
Reasonable grounds were existed for believing that accused was guilty of an offence, which fell within the prohibitory clause
Trial Court, after framing of charge, had already commenced the trial and statements of two prosecution witnesses already been recorded by the Trial Court
Deeper appreciation of evidence could not be resorted to at bail stage
Bail appli cation was dismissed, in circumstances. Shahid Mehmood Khan, Deputy Prosecutor-General with Ilyas, A.S.-I. for the State. Rana Saqib Mumtaz and Rana Ishfaq Ahmad for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.
Through this application Attique-ur-Rehman petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.265 of 2008, dated 30-8-2005 registered at Police Station Ladhaywala Warraich. District Gujran wala, in respect of the offences under sections 337-F(iii)/337-A(i)/336/34. P.P.C.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner as per the F.I.R., is that of causing five repeated dagger blows to the complainant which landed on different parts of his body.
3. In support of this learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been involved in this case mala fidely, that the petitioner has been languishing in jail for the last one year; that the challan has not been submitted before the learned trial Court as yet that there is delay of 13 days in lodging the F.I.R. and that Muhammad Asif co-accused has already been allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail on the basis of rule of consistency.
4. Conversely learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application vigorously, contending that the challan in this case has already been submitted and after framing of charge statements of two prosecution witnesses have also been recorded by the learned trial Court. In support of his contention learned counsel for the complainant has produced certified copy of the evidence sheet of the learned trial Court.
5. After hearing the respective learned counsel for the parties, I have gathered that there is a serious allegation against the petitioner of causing five stab wounds to the injured P.W. with a dagger. Most of the injuries were caused by him on the vital organs of the injured P.W. Further one of the injury caused by the petitioner attracts the provisions of section 336, P.P.C., which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The prosecution story prima facie, is corroborated by the statement of the injured P.W. as well as the medical evidence. Therefore, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of an offence which falls within the prohibitory clause. Besides, after framing of charge the trial has already commenced and statements of two prosecution witnesses have already been recorded by the learned trial Court, therefore at this stage deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be resorted to.
6. Consequently the application in hand stands dismissed. H.B.T./A-281/L Bail refused.