2007 PLP 392 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL, PATWARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 392 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif and M. A. Shahid Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL, PATWARI — 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 392 (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 392 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif and M. A. Shahid Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 392 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL, PATWARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Jawad Zafar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.107
No time, date and place of the names of the prosecution witnesses, who heard alleged abetment, were given in the F.I.R.
Even the statements of alleged witnesses of abetment, were recorded after four days of occurrence
Accused was allowed bail, in circumstances. Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State PLD 1996 SC 241 ref. Syed Zaman Haider for the Complainant. Amjad Iqbal Sindhu for the State Abbas Ali, S.I.
Judgment & Decree
In support of this petition for the grant of bail, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated; though, the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but no time, date, place and the names of the P.Ws. is mentioned in the F.I.R. regarding abetment; in all, there are 9 accused, 7 are still at large, petitioner and one Allah Rakha were being tried; during the course of trial, the counsel for the complainant moved an application that the absconding accused should also be tried in absentia and that application is still pending in the learned trial Court. Further submits that P.Ws. 6 and 8 have appeared before the learned trial Court but they had not levelled any allegation of abetment against the present petitioner.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned counsel for the State submits that statement of witnesses of abetment were recorded on 10-3-2006; offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr. P. C. as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.
3. Heard.
4. No time, date and place or the names of the P.Ws. who heard the abetment, is given in the F.I.R. Unfortunately, the learned trial Court started trial against the petitioner and one of his co-accused, recorded 8 P.Ws. when the complainant party submitted an application for absentia trial of proclaimed offenders and now the trial has been stayed by the learned trial Court. Even the statements of the alleged witnesses of abetment were recorded after four days of the occurrence. While relying on PLD 1996 Supreme Court 241 (Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State), this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court. H.B.T./M-505/L Bail granted.