2005 PLP 1682 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ZAFAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1682 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAFAR — 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 1682 (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 2005 PLP 1682 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1682 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ZAFAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Taj Muhammad Khan Langha for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 324
Case against accused had been recommended for cancellation
One prosecution witness had sworn affidavit that victim in case had committed suicide and she was not set ablaze by accused
During course of investigation, accused had been declared innocent
Finding of police though was not binding on the Court, but it could be considered at bail stage when it was supported by surrounding circumstances
One of eye-witnesses had not supported prosecution versions
Case in circumstances had become of further inquiry
Accused was admitted to bail, in Circumstances. Rao Atif Nawaz for the State. Muhammad Akbar, A.S.-I. with Record.
Judgment & Decree
This is post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.80 of 2004 dated 13-3-2004 registered under sections 302/324, P.P.C. at Police Station, Sara-e-Sidhu, District, Khanewal.
2. Allegation against the present petitioner as per prosecution story is that he was seen by the complainant and P.Ws. running' out of the house of Muhammad Sharif. They tried to catch hold of him but he made good escape. Thereafter he along with other co-accused entered the house and saw that wife of his brother Mst. Kausar had been set ablaze and they hardly put the fire off. She told them that petitioner after scaling over the wall, entered' the house and put her on fire by throwing oil of lamp on her.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is found to be a case of suicide by the. police' and petitioner has been found innocent by the Investigating Agency and discharge report has also been forwarded to the Court of competent jurisdiction. That there is a delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. and that petitioner' has falsely been involved in this case. Further submitted that petitioner is behind the bars for more than one year.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Admittedly case against the petitioner has been recommended for cancellation. One P.W. namely Nawab had sworn affidavit, that Mst. Kausar victim had committed suicide and she was not set ablaze by the petitioner. Furthermore, during the course of investigation the petitioner has been declared innocent.
6. Although police finding is not binding on the Court yet it can be considered at bail stage when they are supported by the surrounding circumstances. In the instant case, one of the eye-witnesses namely Nawab has not supported the prosecution version, so it has become a case of further enquiry. In the circumstances of the case, petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each :in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-972/L Bail granted.