2002 PLP 1025 (MLD)
ANWAAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1025 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J |
| Parties | ANWAAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1025 (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 2002 PLP 1025 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1025 (MLD) (ANWAAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazar Abbas Syed for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ F.I.R. was lodged with a. delay of one day and allegation levelled against accused in the F.I.R. was that of raising joint Lalkara with the co accused‑‑‑Accused had not caused any, injury to any person during incident and last Investigating Officer had found the accused innocent‑‑ Whether accused shared a common intention with the co‑accused and whether accused was vicariously liable for offence allegedly committed by the co‑accused, were the ones which would be determined by Trial Court at time of trial‑‑‑Case against accused calling for further inquiry into his guilt, he was admitted to bail. Saeed Ahmad Malik for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6424‑B of 2001, decided on 29th November, 2001 , ‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ F.I.R. was lodged with a. delay of one day and allegation levelled against accused in the F.I.R. was that of raising joint Lalkara with the co accused‑‑‑Accused had not caused any, injury to any person during incident and last Investigating Officer had found the accused innocent‑‑ Whether accused shared a common intention with the co‑accused and whether accused was vicariously liable for offence allegedly committed by the co‑accused, were the ones which would be determined by Trial Court at time of trial‑‑‑Case against accused calling for further inquiry into his guilt, he was admitted to bail. Nazar Abbas Syed for Petitioner Saeed Ahmad Malik for the State. Through this petition Anwaar petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.142 registered at Police Station Saddar Chiniot, District, Jhang on 1‑4‑2001 for an offence under sections 324/34, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the F.I.R. in this A case had been lodged with a delay of one day and the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the said F.I.R. was that of raising joint Lalkara with his co‑accused. Admittedly the petitioner had not caused any injury to any person during the incident in question. The last Investigating Officer had found the petitioner to be innocent. In these circumstances the question as to whether the petitioner shared a common intention with his co‑accused as also the question whether the petitioner is vicariously liable for the offence allegedly committed by his co‑accused are questions which shall be determined by the learned trial Court at the time of the trial. At this stage the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned .Trial Court. H.B.T./A‑451/L Bail granted.