2016 PLP 1863 (YLR)
ALI RAZA — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1863 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Ahmed Naeem, J |
| Parties | ALI RAZA — 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 2016 PLP 1863 (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 2016 PLP 1863 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Ahmed Naeem, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 1863 (YLR) (ALI RAZA — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahzad Saleem Warraich for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.440
Mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt
Accused was specifically nominated in the FIR with specific role of firing at the complainant and committing mischief
Investigating Officer, during the spot inspection, took into possession ten empties
Prosecution witnesses implicated accused in their statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.
Recovery was yet to be effected
Accused failed to establish mala fide on the part of the complainant, or the Police for his false involvement in the case
Accused failed to make out a case for confirmation of his ad interim pre-arrest bail
Bail petition being meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances. Abdul Jabbar, Deputy District Public Prosecutor along with Sabir Nasir, ASI for the State. Muhammad Shoaib Khokhar for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR AHMED NAEEM, J.
The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.422/15, dated 11.08.2015, under section 440, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Bhatti Gate, Lahore.
2. Allegedly, the petitioner while armed with Pistol attempted at the life of the complainant and committed mischief.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it was noticed:-- i. That the petitioner was specifically nominate in the FIR with specific role of firing at the complainant and committing mischief; ii. That during the spot inspection, the Investigating Officer took into possession ten empties; iii. That the prosecution witnesses implicated the petitioner in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.; iv. That the recovery was yet to be effected; v. That the petitioner failed to establish mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police for his false involvement in this case; and vi. That the petitioner failed to make out a case for confirmation of his ad-interim pre-arrest bail.
4. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this petition which is whereby dismissed. HBT/A-47/L Bail refused.