2000 PLP 452 (YLR)
RASHEED AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 452 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal, J |
| Parties | RASHEED AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 452 (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 2000 PLP 452 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 452 (YLR) (RASHEED AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Two co‑accused of the accused who were attributed specific role in the FLR. had been declared innocent and were got discharged by the police‑‑‑Case of accused, therefore, appeared to be one of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail‑‑‑Accused was released on bail in circumstances. Sher Muhammad v. The State 1994 SCMR 549 rel. Sh. Nasim Rashid for the State,
Judgment & Decree
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner. Sh. Nasim Rashid for the State, The petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No.20 of 1998, dated 22‑1‑1998 under section 324/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Dera Rahim, District Sahiwal registered on the statement of Manzoor Ahmad alleging that the petitioner armed with carbine caused injury on the left side of abdomen and left side of the chest of Muhammad Ahmad, while his co‑accused Abdul Ghafoor and Ghulam Nabi are attributed firing in the air while Yaqoob caused injury with butt of his gun to Muhammad Ahmad.
2. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide order, dated 10‑7‑1998.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and his real brother have been involved with ulterior motive and that the injury attributed to the petitioner is with carbine which is not dangerous to life and that the offence has not been repeated and that the ingredients of section 324, P.P.C., are not attracted and that the two co‑accused of the petitioner have been declared innocent and have been got discharged and that another real brother namely Muhammad Yaqoob has already been allowed bail by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.750/B of 1998.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R., with carbine and having issued a fire hitting on abdomen and chest of the victim and that the case of the petitioner is not at par with his co‑accused to claim the concession of rule of consistency.
5. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both the sides and have gone through the record.
6. Ghulam Nabi and Abdul Ghafoor, co‑accused of the petitioner who were attributed specific role in the F.I.R., have been declared innocent rather got discharged by the Police. In Sher Muhammad v. The State (1994 SCMR 549) their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the interim bail granted to the accused that four out of six persons named in the F.I.R., as actual participants were found innocent during the investigation. Seeking guidance from the precedent, the case of the present petitioner appears to be one of further inquiry entitling the petitioner to the concession of bail as such this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./R‑103,