2017 P Cr (PLP)
MEHDI HASSAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MEHDI HASSAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 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: 2017 P Cr (PLP) (MEHDI HASSAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saeed Rana for Petitioner with Petitioner in person.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Only tentative assessment of available record was to be kept in view while disposing bail petition. [Para. 2 of the judgment]
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-H(2), 148 & 149
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, causing damiyah, causing hashimah, rash and negligent act and rioting
Supplementary statement
Scope
Accused was not named in the FIR and had been introduced in the case through a supplementary statement, got recorded by the complainant after the delay of eight days of the occurrence
No source of information had been disclosed by the complainant
Ante-dated supplementary statement recorded at belated stage had no legal value
Circumstances had brought the case of accused in the ambit of further inquiry
Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the accused was confirmed. [Para. 2 of the judgment]
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-H(2), 148 & 149
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, causing damiyah, causing hashimah, rash and negligent act and rioting
"Version of complainant" and that of the State
Accused was implicated in the case through supplementary statement with a delay of eight days after the occurrence
Investigating officer declared the accused innocent during investigation as he was not present at the scene of crime at relevant time
Case against the accused was a case of two versions, one put forwarded by the complainant in supplementary statement and the other on record during investigation and which version was correct, would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence
Attending circumstances brought the case of accused within the ambit of further inquiry covered under S. 497(2) Cr.P.C.
Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the accused was confirmed. [Para. 2 of the judgment]
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-H(2), 148 & 149
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, causing damiyah, causing hashimah, rash and negligent act and rioting
Injured victim was brother-in-law of the accused but accused had not been named in FIR
Accused was implicated in the case through supplementary statement after the delay of eight days of the occurrence without disclosing the source of information, which carried no value in the eye of law
Such circumstances indicating that case had been lodged against the accused with mala fide intention and with ulterior motive by the complainant after joining hands with the local police
Accused was previously non-convict
Accused was never involved in criminal case
Investigation had been completed
Nothing was to be recovered from the accused
Accused was, therefore, admitted to pre-arrest bail. [Paras. 2 & 3 of the judgment]
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-H(ii), 148 & 149
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, causing damiyah, causing hashimah, rash and negligent act and rioting
Scope
Case against the accused was that of two versions; one put forward by the complainant in supplementary statement and the other came on record during investigation
Liability of the accused in the commission of offence could not be assessed at bail stage
Question of vicarious liability or sharing of common intention would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence
Accused was, therefore, admitted to pre-arrest bail accordingly. [Para. 2 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2841-M of 2016 ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
This is an application for addition of offences under sections 337-A(i)/337-F(i)/337-F(v), P.P.C. in the main petition for pre-arrest bail which offences had been added to the FIR during the investigation of this case. This miscellaneous petition is allowed and offences under sections 337-A(i)/337-F(i)/337-F(v), P.P.C. are also considered as integral part of the main petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner. Mian Petition
2. Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. Mehdi Hassan petitioner has sought bail before arrest in case FIR No. 379/15, dated 13.11.2015 registered at Police Station Warburton, District Nankana Sahib for offences under sections 324/337-A(i)/337-F(i)/337- F(v)/ 337-H(2)/148/149, P.P.C. 2(sic.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case it has been noticed by this Court that this is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. Admittedly the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has been introduced in this case through a supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant on 21.11.2015, i.e. after 8 days of the occurrence wherein no source of information has been disclosed by the complainant. It is settled law that a belated supplementary statement and that too without sources has got no value in the eyes of law. During the investigation of this case the Investigating Officer has opined that the petitioner was not present at the scene of crime at relevant time and, hence, the petitioner was declared innocent. In such like scenario the case of the petitioner becomes case of two versions, one put forth by the complainant in the FIR and the second comes on record during investigation and which version is correct, shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. Reliance in this regard can easily be placed upon the case reported as 2012 SCMR 1137 and 2016 SCMR
18. Irshad, a injured victim is brother-in-law of the petitioner but astonishingly the petitioner has not been named in the FIR which fact shows mala fide of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. The petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, investigation qua him is complete, nothing is to be recovered from him, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars so as to enable him to come out of jail after few days on after arrest bail. The question of vicarious liability or sharing of common intention would also be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. Reliance can be placed on the cases of Mehmood Akhtar and another v. Haji Nazir Ahmad and 4 others (1995 SCMR 310) and Attaullah and 3 others v. The State and another (1999 SCMR 1320).
3. For what has been discussed above, it prima facie seems that the instant case has been lodged against the petitioner with mala fide intention and ulterior motives by the complainant after joining hands with the local police. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner is confirmed subject to their furnishing of fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court/Duty Magistrate. JK/M-182/L Petition allowed.