2006 PLP 1417 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1417 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1417 (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 2006 PLP 1417 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1417 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Mahmood for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 30th September, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 458, 148 & 149
Matter though was reported to the police after almost one month of occurrence, but it could not be said that F.I.R. was lodged after consultation and deliberation because medico-legal report available on record revealed that on next day of occurrence injured was produced before Medical Officer for examination by police concerned
If, in circumstances, case was registered by police after said delay, the burden heavily lay on police officials and not on the complainant
Contents of F.I.R. revealed that specific allegation was made against accused of causing fire-arm injuries to injured
Medical evidence also corroborated ocular account on that score
Injured witnesses during investigation while making statement under S.161, Cr. P. C. had also supported prosecution stand
Prima facie, case of accused was falling within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. in the light of data available on record. Sumera Afzal for the State. Zafar Abbas for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM -UZ-ZAMAN, J.
Seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 773 of 2004, dated 20-8-2004 for the offence under sections 324/458/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Tandalianwala, District, Faisalabad.
2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 26-7-2004 at 5-00 a.m. petitioner being armed with gun along with other co-accused in furtherance of their common intention had caused fire-arm injuries to Sadi Ahmed. During the investigation petitioner remained fugitive from law and after complying with all legal formalities the agency got issued the proclamation and ultimately he was arrested on 13-9-2004. His bail application was dismissed by Addl. Sessions Judge on 25-5-2005, hence this petition.
3. Heard. File perused.
4. This occurrence took place on 26-7-2004 but the matter was reported to the police after almost one month of thelA occurrence i.e. 20-8-2004. In this view of the matter learned counsel argued that the F.I.R. was lodged after consultation and deliberation but I see no force in this argument because Medico-legal Report available on the record reveals that on the next day of occurrence i.e. 27-7-2004 at about 10-00 a.m. injured Sadi Ahmed was produced before Medical Officer for examination by the police concerned and in this view of the matter if the case was registered by the police after the said delay the burden heavily lies on the shoulders of police officials and not against the complainant of this case. The contents of the F.I.R. reveals that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of causing fire-arm injuries to Sadi Ahmed, the medical evidence also corroborates the ocular account on this score. During the investigation the injured witnesses while making statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. has also supported the prosecution stand. In the light of data available on the record, prima facie, finding the case of the petitioner falling within the Prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. I see no force in this petition, the same stands dismissed. H.B.T./M-151/L Bail refused.