YLR 2007

2007 PLP 1113 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8936-B of 2006, decided on 20th November, 2006.
Honorable Judges
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP 1113 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
Parties MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1113 (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 2007 PLP 1113 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1113 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • M.A. Zafar for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(iv)/34

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Accused was empty handed and had not caused any injury to any person during occurrence

Allegation levelled against accused in F.I.R. was that he had taken two of the victims in his clasp and in that way had facilitated his co-accused in giving dagger blows to them

Police had found in investigation that allegations levelled by complainant party against accused regarding taking the victims in his clasp and even regarding his presence at the scene of the crime at the relevant time were factually incorrect

Such opinion of investigating agency, though not binding upon the court, was surely adverse to case of prosecution against accused who, in circumstances, appeared to be entitled to take benefit of the same at the present juncture

Challan after completion of investigation, had already been submitted

Continued custody of accused in jail, was not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at that stage

Concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment

Case against accused calling for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., he was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Ch. Kausar Ali for the State with Rehmat Ali A.S.-I. with record. M. Asghar Khan Rokhri for the Complainant.

Judgment & Decree

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

Through this petition Muhammad Abdullah petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.67 registered at Police Station Mitha Tiwana, District Khushab on 15-5-2006 in respect of offences under sections 302/324/337-F(iv)/ 34, P.P.C.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been noticed by me that admittedly the petitioner was empty-handed during the alleged occurrence and he had not caused any injury to any person during the same. The allegation levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is that he had taken two of the victims in his clasp and had, thus, facilitated his co-accused in giving dagger blows to them. During the investigation of this case it had, however, been found by the police that the allegations levelled by the complainant party against the petitioner regarding taking the victims in his clasp and even regarding his presence at the scene of the crime at the relevant time were factually incorrect. Such an opinion of the investigating agency, although not binding upon the Court, is surely adverse to the prosecution's case against the petitioner and in the circumstances of this case the petitioner appears to be entitled to take benefit of the same at the present juncture. After completion of the investigation a challan has already been submitted and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. It is trite that the concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment.

3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-698/L Bail granted.