2009 PLP 1569 (YLR)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another-Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1569 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Saeed Ejaz, J |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1569 (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 1569 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Saeed Ejaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1569 (YLR) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalid Mahmood Arain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/148/149
Allegation as levelled against accused in the F.I.R. that he started aimless firing and did not cause any injury to any one, by itself, was sufficient to make the case of accused as that of further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr. P. C.
Apart from that, accused was behind the bars for the last one year and four months and the trial had not yet commenced
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Nadir Manzoor Duggal, DPG for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK SAEED EJAZ, J.
Ghulam Muhammad-petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.32 registered on 27-2-2007 under sections 302/148/149 P.P.C. at Police Station Shah Kot, District Sahiwal.
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the F. I: R. are that on 14-11-2006 at about 3-30 a.m., the petitioner along with Hadi Hussain, Muhammad Nawaz, Ramzan and Haitam, all equipped with fire-arms, entered into the Dera of Mst. Jannat Bibi-deceased. Hadi Hussain caused a fire from his .12-bore gun, hitting her on her right shoulder; the second fire shot by Ahmed Yar hit her on her right wrist, while the petitioner and Allah. Bakhsh remained, firing aimlessly in order to harass the witnesses.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner is that he started aimless firing and as such did not cause any injury to the deceased. Further submits that the instant case has been cancelled, as another case bearing F.I.R. No.376/06 in regard to the same occurrence was earlier got registered by Ahmed Yar/co-accused, which is still intact and the present petitioner is also involved in the said case for the murder of Mst. Jannat Bibi and all the incriminating material collected against the petitioner has been shifted to the file of F.I.R. No.376/06.
4. On the other hand, learned APG for the State, at the very outset stated, that the instant case has been cancelled and all the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner has been placed on the file of case F.I.R. No.376/06 got registered by Ahmad Yar for the murder of Mst. Jannat Bibi. As such, he has no objection if the petitioner is granted bail in case F.I.R. No.32/07.
5. After considering the arguments and having gone through the record, it has transpired that the instant F.I.R. No.32/07 got registered by Mst. Saban Bibi for the murder of Mst. Jannat Bibi has been shown cancelled after submission of challan before the learned Sessions Judge, vide case diary dated 20-2-2008 and the petitioner is involved for the murder of said Mst. Jannat Bibi in case F.I.R. No.376/06 got registered by Ahmed Yar.
6. It is noted that the case is cancelled by the Investigating Officer after submission of challan and the said challan bearing F.I.R. No.32/07 is still going to proceed by Sardar Ahmad Khan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cheechawatni. As such, the case is still alive.
7. The allegation as levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. that he started aimless firing and did not cause any injury to any one by itself is sufficient to make the case of the petitioner that of further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Apart from this, he is behind the bars for the last one year and four months and the trial has not commenced so far. Thus, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of rupees five Lacs with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. It is, however, made clear that observations made in this order would not prejudice the proceedings initiated on the basis of F.I.R. No.376/06 because facts of each case are to be read independently. H.B.T./G-33/L Bail granted.