SCMR 2016

2016 PLP 2046 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No. 53-L of 2016, decided on 8th March, 2016.
Honorable Judges
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Manzoor Ahmad Malik and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2016 PLP 2046 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Manzoor Ahmad Malik and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
Primary Law (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 2046 (SCMR)?

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 2016 PLP 2046 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Manzoor Ahmad Malik and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 2046 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq Pannun, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Tasneem Amin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Shahid Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the order dated 1-12-2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.9895-B of 2015)

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 311, 148 & 149

Qatl-i-amd, ta'azir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Case of cross versions

Medical evidence not supporting role attributed to the accused

Accused had been implicated in the case as an accused person through a cross-version advanced by the opposite party

Accused was alleged to have used his rifle to cause firearm injury on the deceased, while the co-accused, armed with a pistol, was also alleged to have effectively fired at the deceased

Post-mortem examination report of deceased however showed that she had sustained only one firearm injury, thus, prima facie the medical evidence available on the record did support the case of the prosecution vis-a-vis the role played by the accused

Apart from that the present case was a case of different versions advanced by the rival parties

Case against the accused called for further inquiry into his guilt

Accused had been arrested about a year and a half ago and his trial had not witnessed any progress so far

Investigation of the case had already been finalized and a challan had been submitted and thus, physical custody of the accused was not required at present stage for the purposes of investigation

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

S. 497

Bail

Scope

Concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment. Shahid Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab and Ishtiaq, S.I. for the State.

Judgment & Decree

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 84-L of 2016 This miscellaneous application is allowed and the documents appended therewith are permitted to be brought on the record of the main petition. Disposed of. Criminal Petition No. 53-L of 2016

2. Through this petition Muhammad Ramzan petitioner has sought, leave to appeal against the order dated 01.12.2015 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 9895-B of 2015 whereby post-arrest bail was refused to him in the cross-version of case FIR No. 429 registered at Police Station Noshehra Virkan, District Gujranwala on 09.01.2014 in respect of offences under sections 302, 311, 148 and 149, P.P.C.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have noticed that the petitioner belongs to the complainant party of the FIR registered in this case and he had subsequently been implicated in this case as an accused person through a cross-version advanced by the opposite party. According to the cross-version the petitioner was armed with a rifle and he had caused an injury with the same on the body of Humaira deceased. The said cross-version had also alleged that a co-accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Anwar, armed with a pistol, had also effectively fired at Humaria deceased. The Post mortem Examination Report pertaining to the deadbody of Humaira deceased showed that the said deceased had sustained only one firearm injury on her left thigh and, thus, the only firearm injury received by the said deceased stood attributed to two accused persons, i.e. the present petitioner and his co-accused namely Muhammad Anwar. The Post-mortem Examination Report further shows that a bullet had been recovered from the firearm injury received by the said lady and during the investigation a gun had been recovered from the petitioner's custody whereas a pistol had been recovered from Muhammad Anwar co-accused. This prima facie indicates that the medical evidence available on the record may not be supporting the case of the prosecution vis-a-vis the role played by the petitioner. Apart from that the case in hand is a case of different versions advanced by the rival parties and in the above mentioned backdrop of lack of support from the medical evidence vis-a-vis the role attributed to the petitioner we have found the case against the petitioner to be a case calling for further inquiry into his guilt. The petitioner had been arrested in connection with this case on 02.10.2014, i.e. about a year and a half ago and his trial has not witnessed any progress so far. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and a Challan has been submitted and thus, physical custody of the petitioner is not required at this stage for the purposes of investigation. It is trite that the concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment.

4. For what has been discussed above this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and consequently Muhammad Ramzan petitioner is admitted to bail in the above mentioned criminal case subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. MWA/M-58/SC Bail granted.