2016 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISMAIL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 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: 2016 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asim Farid Sanotra, Vice Counsel for Petitioner with Petitioner in person.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-F(i), (iv), 337-H(2), 337-N(2), 148 & 149
Causing damiyah, mudihah, hurt by rash or negligent act, rioting, common object
Bail before arrest, confirmation of
Case being of bail before arrest, only tentative assessment, was required
Accused, though was named in FIR, but there was a delay of five days in reporting the matter to the Police, which had not been explained by the complainant; which prima facie had shown that the FIR had been lodged after due deliberation and consultation
No injury had been attributed to accused qua the injured/complainant; and only the role of ineffective firing was attributed to accused
Investigating Officer had confirmed that no crime empty was taken into possession by him during spot inspection, which prima facie, had made the allegation of aerial firing against accused to be of doubtful nature
Question of sharing common intention by accused, with his co-accused, would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence
Offences under Ss.337-F(i) & 337-H(2), P.P.C., were bailable, while the offence under S.337-F(iv), P.P.C., carried punishment up to five years only
Accused was previous non-convict; and was never involved in any other case of such nature
Section 337-N(2), P.P.C., also would come to his rescue because neither he was hardened, dangerous, desperate criminal, nor he had committed the alleged offences on the pretext of honour
Accused, had already joined the investigation
Person of accused, could not be handed over to the Police, merely for effecting recovery, which in the absence of crime empties, was otherwise of little significance
Ad interim pre-arrest bail, already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances. [Paras. 2 & 3 of the Judgment]
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail before arrest in case FIR No.298/15, dated 13.07.2015 registered for the offences under sections 337-F(i), 337-F(iv), 337-H(2), 148, 149, P.P.C., Police Station Ellaabad, District Kasur.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. It has been noticed that although the petitioner is named in FIR, yet the fact remains that there is a delay of five days in reporting the matter to the police, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation. It has been further noticed that no injury whatsoever has been attributed to the present petitioner qua the injured/complainant and only the role of ineffective firing is attributed to him therein. During arguments, the Investigating Officer of the instant case also confirmed that no crime empty was taken into possession by him during spot inspection, which prima facie makes the allegation of aerial firing against the petitioner to be of doubtful nature. Even otherwise, the question of sharing common intention by the petitioner with his co-accused shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. Moreso, the offences under sections 337-F(i) and 337-H(2), P.P.C. are bailable in nature, while the offence under section 337-F(iv), P.P.C. carried punishment upto five years only. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case of such like nature, therefore, section 337-N(2), P.P.C. also comes to his rescue because neither he is hardened, dangerous, desperate criminal nor he has committed the alleged offence on the pretext of honour. He has already joined the investigation. The person of the petitioner cannot be handed over to the police merely for effecting recovery, which in the absence of crime empties is otherwise of little significance.
3. Keeping in view the above diicussion, false implication of the petitioner by the complainant by widening the net cannot be ruled out of consideration. This petition is, therefore, allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail alreally granted to the petitioner vide this Court's order dated 24.08.2015 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupes fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Area Magistrate.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. HBT/M-306/L Bail confirmed.