2007 PLP 335 (YLR)
RAFAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 335 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | RAFAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 335 (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 2007 PLP 335 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 335 (YLR) (RAFAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imran Asmat Ch. for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302
Accused was not nominated in F.I.R., which was got registered after one month and seven days after occurrence
Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded after two months of occurrence
Son of deceased had stated that he had seen accused while giving poisoned water to deceased, but there was no report of Chemical Examiner in that regard
Nothing was recovered from the accused
Case against accused was of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.-Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Arshad Mahmood for the State along with Javaid S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R. was lodged on 3-3-2006 while occurrence had taken place on 25-1-2006; that he was not named in the F.I.R.; that he was named in the supplementary statement which was recorded on 4-3-2006; that petitioner is brother-in-law of the deceased; that according to F.I.R. there was one injury on the person of deceased and thereafter a board was constituted according to which six injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased; that no recovery was effected from him and that case of petitioner is of further inquiry.
2. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that in two investigations the Investigating Officer had come to the conclusion that petitioner is left on the mercy of the Court; that son of the deceased had made a statement after two months of the occurrence that he had seen the petitioner while giving poisoned water to the deceased but admits that there is no evidence on record.
3. Heard. Though the case was registered 1 month and 7 days after the occurrence but the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded after two months of the occurrence. I have gone through the statement of son of the deceased that he had seen the petitioner while giving poisoned water to the deceased but there is no report of Chemical Examiner in this regard. Nothing was recovered from the petitioner. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, case against the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted and petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court. H.B.T./R-68/L Bail granted.