2006 PLP 2054 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD YOUNIS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2054 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUNIS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2054 (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 2006 PLP 2054 (YLR)?
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: 2006 PLP 2054 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD YOUNIS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fayyaz Ahmad Mehr for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324 & 34
Accused was empty-handed during alleged occurrence and he had not caused any injury to any person during occurrence
Accused, according to F.I.R. stood saddled with responsibility of raising a Lalkara only
Accused did not stand directly connected with motive set up in the F.I.R.
Question regarding sharing of common intention by accused with co-accused and also question regarding his vicarious liability for offences allegedly committed by his co-accused were questions which required further inquiry in circumstances
Trial of accused, though had already commenced, but commencement of trial would not pose an insurmountable hurdle in the way of granting bail to an accused whose case was found by a Court to be of further inquiry
Accused was behind the bars for the last more than five years and his trial had not shown any significant progress as statements of only five prosecution witnesses had been recorded so far by Trial Court whereas prosecution was yet to produce sixteen other witnesses cited in calendar of witnesses
Such a long period of incarceration of accused before conviction, if any, had been found by High Court to be unconceivable in circumstances of case
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 ref. Aslam Javed for the State with Abdul Rashid, S.-I. with record.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
Through this petition Muhammad Younis petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.149 registered at Police Station Satto Katla, District Lahore on 10-8-1998 for offences under sections 302/ 324/34, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that admittedly the petitioner was empty-handed during the alleged occurrence and he had not caused any injury to any person during the same. According to the F.I.R. the petitioner stands saddled with the responsibility of raising Lalkara only. Apparently the petitioner does not stand directly connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. In these circumstances the question regarding sharing of common intention by the A petitioner with his co-accused as also the question regarding his vicarious liability for the offences allegedly committed by his co-accused are questions which require further inquiry at this stage. It may be true that the trial of the petitioner has already commenced but at the same time it is equally true that commencement of a trial does not pose an insurmountable hurdle in the way of granting bail to an accused person whose case is found by a Court to be one of further inquiry. A reference in this regard may be made to the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 SC 585). It may be relevant to mention here that the petitioner had been arrested in connection with this case on 22-9-1998 and for the last more than five years he is behind the bars and his trial has not witnessed any significant progress inasmuch as so far the statements of only five prosecution witnesses have been recorded by the learned trial Court whereas the prosecution is yet to produce sixteen other witnesses cited in the Calendar of witnesses. Such a long period of incarcination of the petitioner before his conviction, if any, has been found by this Court to be unconscionable in the circumstances of this case.
3. For what has been discussed above this petition is 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./M-1308/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Bail granted.