2005 PLP 921 (MLD)
ZIA ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 921 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZIA ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 921 (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 2005 PLP 921 (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: 2005 PLP 921 (MLD) (ZIA ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Chaudhry Arshad Mahmood for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324/34
Accused was behind the bars for the last more than seven months and trial had not commenced, even copies of statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. had not been supplied and there was no likelihood of commencement of trial in near future
Alleged injury on right thigh of complainant fell within mischief of S.337-F(vi), P.P.C. and punishment for same was seven years
Prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., in circumstances was not attracted in the case
Was yet to be determined, particularly keeping in view seat of injury, as to whether S.324, P.P.C. could be made applicable
Complainant allegedly was a professional criminal involved in a number of criminal cases
One of alleged eye-witnesses through his affidavit had not supported prosecution version as stated in F.I.R. and second alleged eye-witness was real brother of complainant
Accused did not have any previous history of his involvement in such-like cases
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No.16 of 2004, dated 2-2-2004 under sections 324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Head Rajgan District Bahawalpur.
2. As per F.I.R. petitioner has allegedly caused an injury on right thigh of the complainant with his .30 bore pistol in presence of the P.Ws.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than seven months and the trial has not yet commenced, even the copies of the statements of P.Ws. recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. have not been supplied and there is no likelihood of commencement of the trial in near future; that the alleged injury on the right thigh of the complainant (refers to his MLC) falls within the mischief of section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. and punishment for the same is 7 years, thus, Prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. is not attracted; that it is yet to be determined particularly keeping in view the seat of the injury as to whether section 324, P.P.C. can be made applicable; that the complainant is a professional criminal involved in a number of cases of theft and dacoity; reference has been made to F.I.R. No.132 of 2002 under sections 392, P.P.C. Police Station Head Rajgan and F.I.R. No.133 of 2002 under sections 458, 380, 411, P.P.C.; that one of the alleged eye-witnesses namely Abdul Malik, through his affidavit has not supported the prosecution version as stated in the F.I.R. and second alleged eye-witness is a real brother of the complainant; that the petitioner does not have any previous history of his involvement in such-like cases.
4. Though, the factual position of the case has not been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State, yet, it is submitted by him that the challan has already been submitted and it would be in the fitness of things and fairplay if a direction be issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
5. All the above factors taken together persuade me to allow this petition. Resultantly, the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs.One lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./Z-80/L Bail granted.