2007 PLP 2782 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD AKMAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2782 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Iqbal Hameed ur Rehman, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKMAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2782 (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 2007 PLP 2782 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Iqbal Hameed ur Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2782 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AKMAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Javed Akhtar Wains for Petitioner.
- 3. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is delay of two months in lodging the F.I.R. and for which no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant; that the nature of all the injuries were simple except one injury; that the injuries are on non-vital part of the body; that most of the offences are bailable; that the petitioner was arrested on 17-5-2005 and more than one and half year has lapsed; that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner is non-convict. It is further submitted that one of the eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Ali has given an affidavit that he was not present at the time of occurrence.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(i), 337-F(i), (ii)& (iii)
None of the offences with which accused was charged fell within prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Accused was behind the bars for the last one and half years
Accused in circumstances being entitled to concession of bail, was admitted to bail. Abdul Ghaffar Sial for the State with Muhammad Ayub, S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
IQBAL HAMEED UR REHMAN, J.
Muhammad Akmal, petitioner, was arrested in case F.I.R. No. 101 of 2005, dated 11-5-2005 under sections 337-A(i)/ 337-F(i) (ii) (iii), P.P.C. registered with Police Station Alpa, Multan. Through this miscellaneous petition he seeks post-arrest bail in the said case.
2. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that on 9-5-2005 at about 8-00 a.m. the complainant was coming from Band Bosan on a bus. The bus was overloaded, therefore, he sat on the roof of the bus. When the bus reached Shell Petrol Pump, Muhammad Akmal, petitioner, who was standing there, also came on the roof of bus and raised Lalkara that he has to teach a lesson to the complainant. Thereafter, he caused many blows with Churri to him. Due to injuries caused by the petitioner the complainant became unconscious and fell on the roof of bus.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is delay of two months in lodging the F.I.R. and for which no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant; that the nature of all the injuries were simple except one injury; that the injuries are on non-vital part of the body; that most of the offences are bailable; that the petitioner was arrested on 17-5-2005 and more than one and half year has lapsed; that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner is non-convict. It is further submitted that one of the eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Ali has given an affidavit that he was not present at the time of occurrence.
4. The bail petition has been opposed by the learned State counsel. .It-is submitted by the State counsel that the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. with a specific role; the recovery of knife has been effected from him and the challan has been submitted on 25-5-2005.
5. Arguments heard and record perused. None of the offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last one and half year. In the circumstances of the case the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. This petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (One lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./M-203/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.