2017 PLP 364 (YLR)
GHULAM MURTAZA alias BUBAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 364 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Farrukh Gulzar Awan, J |
| Parties | GHULAM MURTAZA alias BUBAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 364 (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 2017 PLP 364 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: Farrukh Gulzar Awan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 364 (YLR) (GHULAM MURTAZA alias BUBAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Chiragh Din Shah Bukhari for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 392
Qatl-i-amd, robbery
Accused was implicated in the case in a supplementary statement made by the complainant; wherein he showed his belief regarding involvement of accused in the occurrence being based on the evidence of Wajtakkar and prosecution witnesses
Occurrence was of dark-night, wherein features of the assailants had not been mentioned in the FIR
Nothing incriminating was brought on record against accused, except the recovery of veil (Lungi/Mandasa) which was not the weapon of offence, and extra judicial confession, allegedly made by accused before prosecution witnesses
Veracity of said recovery of veil and that of inadmissible alleged extra judicial confession, would be thrashed at trial stage
Investigation had been finalized and the continued incarceration of accused, would serve no useful purpose to the prosecution
All said factors, had success-fully made out case of accused being one of further inquiry
Accused being entitled to concession of bail, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Allah Ditta v. The State and others 2012 SCMR 184 rel. Mian Haq Nawaz Saqib for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
FARRUKH GULZAR AWAN, J.--Ghulam Murtaza alias Bubal, the petitioner has sought concession of post arrest bail in case FIR No.653 dated 28.8.2015, under Sections 302/392, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Gadai District Dera Ghazi Khan.
2. Pithily and saga as contained in the crime report is that on 27.8.2015 at 11:35 p.m. three unknown dacoits having muffled faces, waylaid the complainant and his brother Ghulam Raza near Jaboji Bridge when they were going back to their house on motorcycle. The complainant did not stop the motorcycle whereupon they made indiscriminate firing and one of the fires hit Ghulam Raza on his back, who was on rear seat; he succumbed to the said injury at some distance.
3. Arguments pro and contra heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner was implicated in this case on the supplementary statement made by the complainant on 28.8.2015 wherein he showed his belief regarding involvement of the petitioner in this occurrence being based on the evidence of Waj Takkar of Muhammad Kamal and Ghulam Mustafa PWs, which is very weak type of evidence. It was a dark-night occurrence wherein features of the assailants have not been mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 21.10.2015 and during investigation nothing incriminating was brought on record against him except the recovery of veil (Lungi/Mandasa) and extra judicial confession allegedly made by him before Haji Siddique and Nadir Hussain PWs. Veracity of said recovery of veil, not being the weapon of offence, and that of inadmissible alleged extra judicial confession, shall be thrashed at trial stage. The investigation has been finalized and the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no beneficial purpose to the prosecution. All these factors have successfully made out case of the petitioner being one of further inquiry, therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. I am fortified from the case- law cited as "Allah Ditta v. The State and others (2012 SCMR 184) in this context. In view of above, the petition in hand is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/-(rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. HBT/G-8/L Bail granted.