2021 PLP 136 (YLRN)
MUHAMMAD SHER — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 136 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHER — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 136 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 136 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 136 (YLRN) (MUHAMMAD SHER — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasir Mehboob Tiwana for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 311 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, common intention
Scope
Accused along with another was alleged to have murdered the wife of complainant on account of ghairat
Accused was father of the deceased
Accused was particularly nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing firearm injuries on the person of deceased
Complainant and other prosecution witnesses had sworn affidavits before the Additional Sessions Judge during the proceedings of post-arrest bail that they had not seen the occurrence; that the police had obtained their thumb impressions on blank papers and that the accused was innocent
Prosecution did not have sufficient incriminating material to connect the accused with the commission of alleged offence and the case required further inquiry in terms of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.
Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances. Allah Bakhsh v. Nazar Hussain Shah v. another 1979 SCMR 137; Muhammad Hayat and others v. The State 1988 SCMR 474 and Muhammad Nawaz alias Najja v. The State 1991 SCMR 111 ref. Rai Asif Hussain, D.P.G. for the State with Ghulam Qasim, S.I.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ DOGAR, J.
By way of this petition, the petitioner namely Muhammad Sher seeks his release on post-arrest bail in case FIR No.201/2020, dated 21.8.2020, offences under sections 302, 311, 34, P.P.C., registered with the Police Station Mitha Tiwana, District Khushab.
2. The precise facts, as per FIR got lodged by Arshad Iqbal complainant, are that the petitioner while armed with pistol along with his co-accused committed murder of Mst. Rukhsana Bibi aged about 19/20 years on account of ghairat.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. The complainant is husband, whereas, the present petitioner is father of the deceased. Although the petitioner is particularly nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing firearm injuries on the person of deceased Mst. Rukhsana and names of the complainant as well as Muhammad Anwar and Khalid Hussain have been placed as witnesses of the occurrence, but the fact remains that during the proceedings of post-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the complainant and other P.Ws. have sworn their affidavits to the effect that they had not seen the occurrence. The complainant as well as Muhammad Anwar and Khalid Hussain P.Ws. have stated that the police obtained their thumb impressions on blank papers. They also submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has no connection with the alleged occurrence.
5. Learned DPG for the State submits that the petitioner has committed murder of his real daughter on account of ghairat, therefore, the affidavits furnished by the complainant and witnesses before the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be relied upon at this stage. It is noticed that the complainant and other eye-witnesses are exculpating the petitioner from the commission of alleged offence, as such, the learned trial Court, having exclusive jurisdiction in the matter, would be better to adjudge after recording the evidence whether the petitioner has any connection with the commission of alleged offence or not. Wisdom is drawn from Allah Bakhsh v. Nazar Hussain Shah and another (1979 SCMR 137), Muhammad Hayat and others v. The State (1988 SCMR 474) and Muhammad Nawaz alias Najja v. The State (1991 SCMR 111).
6. In view of above, prima facie, the prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence and petitioner's case requires further inquiry in terms of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The investigation is complete. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest. Meaning thereby, the petitioner no more required to the Police for any further investigation.
7. Resultantly, the petition in hand is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only), with two sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. The observations made hereinabove are mere tentative in nature and shall not influence the learned trial Court, in any manner. SA/M-70/L Bail granted.