2009 PLP 1111 (YLR)
ZULFIQAR ALI and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1111 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rustam Ali Malik, J |
| Parties | ZULFIQAR ALI 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 2009 PLP 1111 (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 2009 PLP 1111 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rustam Ali Malik, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1111 (YLR) (ZULFIQAR ALI and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 452, 380, 337-F(i), 337-A(i), 337-L(ii), 148 & 149
Medico-legal report showed that brother of the complainant had received five injuries on his person, while complainant had received six injuries
Submission of counsel for accused persons was that one co-accused had already been allowed bail by the Trial Court
Counsel had further submitted that in fact the complainant, her sister and their brothers were actual aggressors and they had given severe beating to the sister of accused persons, who had received four injuries on her person
Police Officer present in the court had stated that accused persons had not joined the investigation
Case of accused, in circumstances was not a fit case for extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. Mian Muhammad Abbas along with the Petitioner. Gohar Razzaq Awan for the Complainant. Agha I.A. Irnran for the State M. Aslam, A.S.I.
Judgment & Decree
RUSTAM ALI MALIK, J.
The petitioners namely Zulfiqar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmad and Naeem Ahmed seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.112/03 registered on 8-3-2003 in Police Station Shariqpur Sharif under sections 452, 380, 337,-F(i), 337-A(i),337-L(ii), 148 and 149, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. was lodged by one Mst. Khadija-ul-Kubra stating therein that her brother Muhammad Ashfaq was married with Asifa Bibi about 8/9 months prior to the registration of the case. However, there used to be frequent quarrels between them. On 2-3-2003, around 6-00 p.m. there was a quarrel between Muhammad Ashfaq and Asifa Bibi and Mst. Asifa Bibi proceeded to the house of her parents. However, around 8-30 p.m. Imtiaz, Zulfiqar, Naeem and Shahbaz Ahmad armed with Sotas reached there and started giving bearing to the complainant and her brother Muhammad Ashfaq P.W. After breaking open the look of the Almirah they also took along some gold ornaments (detailed in F.I.R.) and 20 pairs of garments, etc. On hearing the noise, Shahid and Muhammad Usman P.Ws. reached there and got them rescued.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. According to the Medico-legal report Muhammad Ashfaq had received five injuries on his person while Mst. Khadija ul-Kubra complainant had received six injuries. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Shahbaz Ahmad, a co-accused of the petitioners, has already been allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He has further submitted that in fact the complainant and her sister Mst. Abida and their brother Ashfaq were the actual aggressors and they had given serve bearing to Mst. Asifa Bibi, the real sister of the petitioners and Mst. Asifa Bibi and received four injuries on her person. The S.I. present in the Court had stated that he had recorded the version of Mst. Asifa as well, as per direction of this Court. It appears that as a result of investigation by the A.S.P, Ferozewala, section 380, P.P.C. was deleted. However, the A.S-I. present in the Court has stated that the petitioners have not joined the investigation. As already mentioned above, Muhammad Ashfaq had received five injuries on his person while the complainant herself had received as many as six injuries.
5. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it does not appear to be a fit case for extra-ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. The bail application is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./Z-1/L Bail refused.