YLR 2011

2011 PLP 1649 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD AWAIS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 13879-B of 2010, decided on 13th January, 2011.
Honorable Judges
Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2011 PLP 1649 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
Parties MUHAMMAD AWAIS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
Primary Law (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1649 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 1649 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1649 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AWAIS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Haji Khalid Rehman for Petitioner.
  • Ch. Karamat Ali, D.P.-G. for Respondent No.1./State with Muhammad Ishaq, S.-I. with police record.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(v)/427/34

Causing hurt "ghayr-jaifah" and damage

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Accused was named in the F.I.R., but he was not attributed any injury to the complainant

Question of his sharing common intention with the other accused persons would be determined at the trial

Case against accused needed further inquiry into his guilt as envisaged by S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Relief of bail could not be denied to accused on the basis of his alleged abscondence, if he was found entitled to bail

Accused was a previous non-convict and he was behind the bars for the last about three months

Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. Muhammad Riaz v. The State and another 2010 MLD 1063; Saeed v. State and another 2008 PCr.LJ 726; Asghar Ali alias Kaloo v. The State PLD 2008 Lah. 191 and Muzaffar Ali v. The State 2007 YLR 2579 ref.

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-F(v)/427/34

Causing hurt "ghayr-jaifah" and damage

Bail

Abscondence

Effect

Alleged abscon-dence of accused cannot deprive him of his right of bail, if he is otherwise found entitled to the same. Muhammad Riaz v. The State and another 2010 MLD 1063; Saeed v. State and another 2008 PCr.LJ 726; Asghar Ali alias Kaloo v. The State PLD 2008 Lah. 191 and Muzaffar Ali v. The State 2007 YLR 2579 ref.

Judgment & Decree

CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.

Petitioner Muhammad Awais through the instant petition has sought for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.97 registered under sections 337-F(v), 427 read with section 34, P.P.C. with Police Station D-Type Colony, Faisalabad on 27-2-2008.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. is that on 8-2-2008 at about 2-00 p.m. Sh. Irfan, Awais (petitioner), Shoaib, Faizan alias Tota having sotas have stopped the car of complainant Mehmood Hussain Rehmani and they forcibly got him alighted therefrom. Sh. Irfan inflicted him sota blow hitting on his left hand and as a result whereof his little finger was fractured. Shoaib gave him sota blow hitting on his left hand and as a result of the same middle finger of that hand was fractured. Awais (petitioner) inflicted him sota blow but he stepped backward and as a result whereof he did not sustain injury. Faizan gave blow with sota on the rear screen of his vehicle and a result of the same it was broken. Abdul Razzaq and Usman witnessed the occurrence and they rescued him. The motive behind the occurrence is hostility between the parties over election.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that though he is named in the F.I.R. but no injury to the complainant is ascribed to him. The question of his sharing common intention would be determined at trial. Hence, from such an angle, his case definitely is one of further inquiry into his guilt and so, covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

4. The learned D.P.-G. has submitted that he has remained an absconder for quite sometime and so, has lost normal right to bail. I am afraid that this contention is not with force in his case as it is now very well settled proposition in criminal administration of justice that case of an accused, when may, otherwise, be found fit for bail, he then cannot be refused such relief merely for the reason of his alleged absconsion. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Riaz v. The State and another (2010 MLD 1063 Lahore), Saeed v. State and another 2008 PCr.LJ 726, Asghar Ali alias Kaloo v. The State (PLD 2008 Lahore 191) and Muzaffar Ali v. The State 2007 YLR 2579.

5. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about three months and a previous non-convict, which has not been controverted by the other side.

6. In these circumstances of the case, I have been persuaded to hold that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.

7. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M-94/L Bail allowed.