2001 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NADEEM BUTT and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2001 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NADEEM BUTT and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 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: 2001 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NADEEM BUTT and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aftab Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate.
- M. Iqbal Bhatti, Advocate.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/148/149/109
Allegation against accused was simply of ineffective firing-- Weapons employed by accused in the course of occurrence were not recovered
Crime empties recovered from the spot had matched with the weapons recovered at the instance of other accused
Case against accused, in circumstances, needed further, inquiry and they were allowed bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
M. Iqbal Bhatti, Advocate. S.D. Qureshi for the State. Petitioners are accused in case F. I. R. No. 5 of 2000, dated 15-1-2000, under section 302/324/148/149/109, P.P.C., Police Station Batapur, Lahore. According to allegations contained in the first information report, Muhammad Tufail alias Shera Butt alongwith a number of persons including the petitioners, while variously armed went to the shop of brother of the complainant, started bad-mouthing and then declared that he would be taught a lesson for enmity with Liaqat Ali. According to the complainant in his view, Muhammad Tufail fired with pistol which hit his brother and then Shabbir Ahmad fired at the victim. Asif Butt fired at Babar Butt, while Muhammad Irfan fired at Naveed Butt. According to the' complainant, the other accused continued firing in the air and-kept extending threats of life to anybody who approached the scene of occurrence.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that they were ascribed an artificial role on account of relationship with other accused and that the only role ascribed by them was that of ineffective firing which was not corroborated by any other evidence brought on file. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant strenuously opposed the prayer made. It was urged that all the accused having armed themselves with lethal weapons had gone to the shop of the victim and the present petitioners had also used their weapons and prima facie, were vicariously liable for the offence committed and did not deserve concession of bail.
3. Admittedly, the allegation against the petitioners is that of ineffective firing. The 'weapons employed by them in the course of occurrence were not recovered. The spent casings recovered from the Spot matched with the weapons recovered at the instance of other accused and in these circumstances, case of the petitioners is, considered to be that of further inquiry.
4. Petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rupees one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
5. In case the petitioners misused the concession of bail in any manner, the complainant or the State would be at liberty to approach the Court for cancellation of bail being allowed to the petitioners. N.H.Q./M-315/L Bail allowed.