2018 P Cr (PLP)
QASIM — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | QASIM — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 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: 2018 P Cr (PLP) (QASIM — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shahid Tasawar Rao for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497 & 347
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(iii), 337-L(2), 337-F(i), 337-N(2)& 34
Hurt, common intention
Role attributed to accused was that he gave fist blow to the injured which landed on his nose and caused fracture
FIR was registered with a delay of eight days
Injury attributed to accused was declared by doctor as under 337A(iii), P.P.C.
While deciding bail application maximum punishment was not to be considered and the punishment likely to be awarded to the accused would be considered
Offence with which the accused was charged was triable by Magistrate, Section-30, who could award punishment upto seven years only
Whether it was a fit case to be sent to the Court of Session under S. 347, Cr.P.C. would be determined by trial court after recording evidence
When there are two inferences regarding the same thing one in favour of accused would prevail
Accused was previous non-convict and never involved in any other case
Accused was behind the bars since five months without any fruitful progress towards conclusion of trial
Investigation of case was complete and accused was no more required for further investigation
Nobody could be kept in jail for indefinite period as speedy trial was right of every accused person
No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused behind the bars
Case of accused became one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Bail was granted accordingly.
S. 337-N(2)
Scope
Sentence of imprisonment could only be awarded if accused was a previous convict, habitual or desperate criminal or had committed the offence in the name or on the pretext of honour.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.226/17, dated 13.06.2017 under sections 337-A(iii), 337-L(2), 337-F(i), 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Rajoa, District Chiniot.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of eight days in registration of the FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got registered after due deliberation and consultation. As per FIR, the role attributed to the present petitioner is that he gave fist blow to Noor Muhammad injured which landed on his nose and caused fracture and the injury attributed to the petitioner has been declared by the doctor as 337-A(iii), P.P.C. It is settled law that while deciding bail petition, maximum punishment is not to be considered and the punishment likely to be awarded to the petitioner according to the facts and circumstances of this case is to be considered. Even otherwise, the offence with which the petitioner is charged is triable by Magistrate Section-30 who can award punishment upto seven years only and whether it is a fit case to be sent to the Court of Sessions under section 347, Cr.P.C. or not shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. It is also settled law that when there are two inferences, the one in favour of the accused shall be drawn. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case, so section 337-N(2), P.P.C. also comes to his rescue which provides that sentence of imprisonment can only be awarded if accused is a previous convict, habitual or desperate criminal or has committed the offence in the name of or on the pretext of honour. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 15.06.2017 and since then he is behind the bars without any fruitful progress towards the conclusion of his trial. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. Nobody can be kept in jail for indefinite period as speedy trial is right of every accused, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
3. For what has been discussed above the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. WA/Q-8/L Bail granted.