1995 PLP 614 (MLD)
SARWAR ALI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 614 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Hussain, J |
| Parties | SARWAR ALI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 614 (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 1995 PLP 614 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 614 (MLD) (SARWAR ALI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused had been declared innocent in two successive investigations‑‑‑Accused according to his school leaving certificate was about 14 years old at the time of occurrence‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Rehmat Ullah alias Rehman v. The State and another 1970 SCMR 299 and Siraj Din v. Saghir‑ud‑Din alias Goga and another 1970 SCMR Ch. Muhammad Siddique Safdar, Advocate. Mirza Fiaz Ahmed for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner Sarwar Ali seeks bail under section 302/34, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.266/93 registered at P.S. Kasowal. 2: Brief facts of the case are that on 24‑12‑1993 at about 3‑30 p.m. Abdul Ghaffar, Asghar Ali and Anwar Ali armed with spears and Sarwar Ali armed with hatchet came to the shop of Sardar Ali deceased and raised a Lalkara that they would teach him a lesson for playing tape‑recorder on high pitch. Sardar Ali deceased was surrounded by all the accused. They inflicted injuries on Sardar Ali with their respective weapons. In the meanwhile Muhammad Shafi and Sultan reached the scene of occurrence.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he gave a spear below on the Head of the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared innocent in two successive investigations after discreet probe. In this respect the statements of the respectables of the locality were also recorded. To support the contention reliance has been placed upon Rehmat Ullah alias Rehman v. The State and another 1970 SCMR 299, wherein it was observed as under- "The opinion of the investigating officers certainly do not constitute legal, evidence, but being adverse to the prosecution, they put on an inquiry as to the veracity of the prosecution case." He further argues that the petitioner at the time of occurrence was less than 14 years and as such was a minor and his case falls under proviso 1 of section 497, Cr.P.C. entitling him to concession of bail. He has referred to Siraj Din v. Saghir‑ud‑Din alias Goga and another 1970 SCMR 30.
5. Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application.
6. I have heard both the counsel and have perused the record.
7. Admittedly the petitioner was declared innocent as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even otherwise from the school leaving certificate of the petitioner it emerges that the petitioner was about 14 years old at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel for the State is unable to controvert these assertions.
8. In view of it, I feel inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing his security in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Chichawatni. N.H.Q. S‑562/L Bail granted.