2005 PLP 1651 (YLR)
QURBAN HUSSAIN alias MIRZA and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1651 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | QURBAN HUSSAIN alias MIRZA and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1651 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1651 (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: 2005 PLP 1651 (YLR) (QURBAN HUSSAIN alias MIRZA and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioners in both the petitions (Crl. Miscellaneous Nos. 421-B and 1181-B of 2004).
- Date of hearing: 5th March, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/148/149
Fatal injury to the deceased was ascribed to the accused
Grant of bail on the basis of minority of the accused was always discretionary with the Court
Role of accused did not make him entitled to bail at this stage
Bail was refused to accused in circumstances.
S.497
Penal Code (XLV, of 1860), Ss.302/148/149
Accused was not named in the F.I.R
Ineffective firing only was ascribed to accused"--Case of accused being identical to that of his co- accused already enlarged on bail, he was also entitled to bail due to the rule of consistency
Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Mirza Abdullah Baig for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 5th March, 2004. Petitioners Qurban Hussain alias Mirza and Murtaza Ali vide two separate petitions bearing Crl. Miscellaneous Nos.421-B and 1181-B of 2004 respectively have sought for the relief of post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.396 dated 25-8-2002 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Saddar Pakpattan Sharif.
2. As both these petitions have arisen out of one and the same case hence are, being disposed of by this single order.
3. The facts of the case stood mentioned in the order dated 7-10-2003 of my learned brother Nasim Sabir J., passed in post-arrest bail petition (Crl. Miscellaneous No.2355-B of 2003) titled Muhammad Amir v. The State. The same therefore, are not, repeated here.
4. Before proceeding further, I would like to mention here that my said learned brother has dealt with the bail petitions of the co-accused of the present petitioner. He is not available here these days. I, therefore, proceed to decide these petitions.
5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner Qurban Hussain alias Mirza that he has been ascribed solitary fire shot to deceased Mst. Sakina Bibi and that too on the non-vital part of her body; that he is 14 years of age as per his school leaving certificate; that it is a case of two versions and hence further probe is needed into his guilt; and that he is behind the bars and previous non-convict.
6. As regards Murtaza Ali petitioner, it has been contended that he is not named in the F.I.R. "that mere ineffective firing is attributed to him, that his case is identical to his co-accused Muhammad Amir, who has been allowed bail vide the order dated 7-10-2003 in bail petition (Crl. Miscellaneous No.2355-B of 2(03) titled Muhammad Amir v. The State, and that he is behind the bars and previous non -convict.
7. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed .the petitions on the ground that petitioner Qurban Hussain alias Mirza' has been ascribed fatal shot to deceased Mst. Sakina Bibi, and that they have also killed their two persons in order to falsely implicate the complainant party.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides with the help of the available record.
9. As regards petitioner Qurban Hussain alias Mirza, he has been ascribed fatal injury to Mst. Sakina Bibi deceased. The grant of bail on the basis of minority is always discretionary with the Court. In view of the role ascribed to him, I am not inclined to admit him to bail at this stage. His petition (Crl. Miscellaneous No.421-B of 2004), therefore, is dismissed.
10. As regards Murtaza Ali petitioner, he is not named in the F.I.R. He has been ascribed only ineffective firing. His case is identical to that of his co-accused Muhammad Amir, who has been enlarged on bail vide the aforesaid order dated 7-10-2003. The rule of consistency, therefore, comes into play in his case.
11. In these circumstances, I have been persuaded to enlarge him on bail. His petition (Crl. Miscellaneous No.1181-B of 2004), therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees on lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q/Q-19/L Order accordingly.