2026 PLP 97 (MLD)
Junaid — Petitioner Versus The State and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2026 PLP 97 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Junaid — Petitioner Versus The State and others — Respondents |
| 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 2026 PLP 97 (MLD)?
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 2026 PLP 97 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP 97 (MLD) (Junaid — Petitioner Versus The State and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Barrister Danyal Ijaz Chadhar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 452, 436, 109, 148 & 149
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, mischief by fire or explosive substance with the intent to destroy a building, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly
Petitioner was nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing firearm injury below the right chest of deceased
During the course of investigation, the petitioner claimed a specific plea that he only tried to rescue the children and had not participated in the occurrence
Said version of the petitioner was also verified by the Investigating Officer in its findings incorporated in daily case diary, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner did not participate in the crime, therefore, the petitioner's case became one requiring further inquiry into his alleged guilt
Furthermore, considering the outcome of the investigations, the petitioner's case presented two conflicting versions; one stated by the complainant in the FIR and the other revealed by the Investigating Officer
Which version was correct was a matter to be determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence
Apart from the above, the crime empties which were secured from the crime scene were found shot from one crime weapon which did not belong to the petitioner
Principal perpetrator of the crime committed suicide at the crime scene
Nothing was recovered upon the disclosure of the petitioner
Investigation had been completed and the petitioner was no more required for the purpose of any further investigation
Petitioner was arrested on 18.05.2025 and had been in custody since, without significant progress in the trial
In such state of affairs, the case of the petitioner fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of S.497 of Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt
Petitioner was behind the bars and was no more required for further investigation
Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.
S. 497
Scope
Observations made in the bail order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the Trial Court.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Jawad Zafar, J.
Through this petition, filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 ( Cr.P.C or Code ), the petitioner, namely, Junaid, seeks post arrest bail in crime report bearing FIR No. 1727/2024, dated 11.12.2024, for offences under Sections 302, 324, 452, 436, 109, 148, 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ( P.P.C. ), registered with the Police Station Zafarwal, District Narowal ( Crime Report or FIR ).
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. It is noticed that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing firearm injury below the right chest of Hajran Bibi deceased. During the course of investigation, the petitioner claimed a specific plea that he only tried to rescue the children and had not participated in the occurrence. This version of the petitioner was also verified by the Investigating Officer in its findings incorporated in daily case diary No. 37 dated 28.05.2025, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner did not participate in the crime, therefore, the petitioner s case becomes one requiring further inquiry into his alleged guilt.[1] Furthermore, considering the outcomes to the investigations, the petitioner s case presents two conflicting versions; one stated by the complainant in the FIR, and the other revealed by the Investigating Officer. Which version is correct is a matter to be determined by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence. Reliance is placed on the cases titled Ehsan Ullah v. The State (2012 SCMR 1137), Saif Ullah v. The State and others (2019 SCMR 1458), Najeeb Ullah v. The State and another (2020 SCMR 1241) and Muhammad Ramzan v. The State and others (2021 SCMR 1914).
4. Apart from the above, the crime empties which were secured from the crime scene were found shot from one crime weapon which does not belong to the petitioner. The principal perpetrator of the crime committed suicide at the crime scene. Nothing as recovered upon the disclosure of the petitioner. Investigation has been completed and the petitioner is no more required for the purpose of any further investigation. The petitioner was arrested on 18.05.2025 and has been in custody since, without significant progress in the trial.
5. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497 of Cr.P.C for further inquiry into his guilt. The petitioner is behind the bars and is no more required for further investigation. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of PKR.1,000,000/- (Rupees One Million Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. Needless to mention that any observations made in the above order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial court. JK/J-14/L Petition allowed. [1] See Saeed Ahmed and another v. The State (PLD 2024 SC 1241); Chaudhry Nadeem Sultan v. The State (2022 SCMR 663) and Sharif Khan v. The State and another (2021 SCMR 87)