YLRN 2017

2017 PLP 76 (YLRN)

TANVEER AHMED — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Crl. Misc. No.25067-B of 2015, decided on 18th January, 2016.
Honorable Judges
Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2017 PLP 76 (YLRN)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, J
Parties TANVEER AHMED — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
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 2017 PLP 76 (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 2017 PLP 76 (YLRN)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 76 (YLRN) (TANVEER AHMED — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Muhammad Alamgir Khan for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302

Qatl-i-amd

Bail, refusal of

Incident in question had happened in day light

FIR had been lodged promptly

Accused had been attributed the fire shot, which had resulted in death of the deceased

Medical evidence on the record supported the ocular account

Investigation Officer had found the accused guilty of the offence

Offence in question fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Bail application was dismissed accordingly. [Para. 6 of the judgment] Iftikhar-ul-Haq, Additional Prosecutor General and Manzoor, S.I. for the State.

Judgment & Decree

MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.

Tanveer Ahmad after having been arrested to prison prays for his letting out of jail through the instant application.

2. Accusation sententiously is that the petitioner along with his co-accused mentioned in the FIR caused the death of Tahir Naseem, brother of Muhammad Yar, complainant.

3. By specificity the role against the petitioner is that he held a firearm weapon at the time of incident, made a fire shot with it hitting Tahir Naseem at his chest, fell dead.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the complainant party has distorted and twisted the facts of coming-off the rueful incident; in the alleged incident, Muhammad Ahmad son of Zulfiqar, of the petitioner's party also died whose death has been suppressed while partway investigation cross-firing made was limelighted withal an errant shot might have hit deceased Tahir Naseem; more so, the weapon allegedly recovered from him lacks corroboration on account of non-availability of its spent crime empties; all these circumstances, prima facie, constitute a case for the grant of bail to the petitioner, therefore, instant application may be accepted. Learned counsel has also turned to favouring precedential law.

4. Learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has hapsodizedly argued that the petitioner is named in the FIR; he is the sole perpetrator of the murder of Tahir Naseem; partway investigation has been found guilty and recovery of the crime weapon has also been effected while medical evidence adheres to ocular account; the offence alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner deserves turning down.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant rambunctiously has criticized the police opinion and has supplemented the arguments of learned Additional Prosecutor General with postulations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. 5(sic) Tripartite arguments heard. Record perused fastidiously.

6. Incident took place under the sun light reported within hour, the place of occurrence has been noticed distant. 05-Kilometer from the police station reporting being prompt, Prima facie, excludes hypothesis of deliberations and consultations. Petitioner remains the sole who made a fire shot at the deceased resulted in his instantaneous death. Medical evidence coheres the ocular account. Investigating agency opines the petitioner guilty. Offence alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner murmur to the profundity in facts but the law sans juncturally, therefore, the Court is of the humble view that nohow the case is constituted for the grant of bail, thus, sequently the same is yielded in dismissal. SL/T-7/L Bail declined.