2002 PLP 1150 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AMEEN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1150 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawja, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMEEN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1150 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1150 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1150 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AMEEN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Mohandra for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324‑‑‑Bail, grant of ‑‑‑Question of guilt of accused for offence under S.324, P.P.C. being one of further inquiry, bail was granted to accused in circumstances. Raja Sohail Iftikhar for the Complainant. Niaz Ahmad Shah for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Mohandra for Petitioners. Raja Sohail Iftikhar for the Complainant. Niaz Ahmad Shah for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the entire circumstances, of the case as well as the police investigation have resulted in a finding by the Investigating Officer that the two petitioners are innocent. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. are not attracted to the case because there is only one fire‑arm injury allegedly caused to the complainant/injured Ijaz Ahmad by Muhammad Nadeem.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant pointed out that the F.I.R. had been promptly recorded and a specific role had been attributed to the two petitioners. He further contended that no recovery has as yet been effected.
3. Apart from the above submissions, learned counsel for the complainant also contended that the petitioners were fugitives from the law as they had not surrendered to the police when their bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge had been rejected.
4. I have considered the contentions of both learned counsel and note that the question of the guilt of the petitioners for an offence under A section 324, P.P.C., is one of further inquiry. Learned counsel for the complainant wishes to refer to some case‑law, but I do not find that necessary while disposing of the present petition in the circumstances narrated above.
5. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are allowed bail on A furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court. H.B.T./M‑1014/L Bail granted.