2017 P Cr (PLP)
ISRAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ISRAR AHMAD — 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 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 P Cr (PLP) (ISRAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rizwan Akhtar Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 148 & 149
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, common object
Case being of bail after arrest, only tentative assessment was required
Accused, though was named in FIR, but the firearm injury attributed to him therein, could not be observed by the Doctor during medical examination of injured
Medico-legal certificate showed that only an abrasion was observed
Prima facie, contradiction existed between ocular and medical evidence
Accused, having not caused any injury to the deceased, question of sharing common intention by accused with co-accused, as well as his vicarious liability in the commission of murder, would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence
Accused was previous non-convict and was behind the bars for more than one year and seven months, but his trial had not been concluded
Investigation of the case was completed and accused was no more required for further investigation
Further incarceration of accused in jail, would not serve any useful purpose
Mere heinousness of offence, was no ground to refuse bail to an accused, who otherwise had become entitled to concession of bail
Case of accused having become one of further inquiry, he was allowed bail, in circumstances. [Paras. 2 & 3 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.147/2014 dated 21.07.2014 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Chountra, District Rawalpindi.
2. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that although the petitioner is named in FIR yet the firearm injury attributed to him therein could not be observed by the doctor during medical examination of Arslan injured and as per his medico legal certificate only an abrasion was observed, hence, prima facie there is contradiction between ocular and medical evidence. Even otherwise the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased, therefore, the questions of sharing common intention by the petitioner with his co-accused as well as his vicarious liability in the commission of murder of Usman deceased shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. Reliance can be placed on 1996 SCMR 1125. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict. He was arrested in connection with this case on 21.08.2014; now more than one year and seven months have elapsed and he is still behind the bars but his trial has not been concluded as yet. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation, therefore, his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. I may observe here that mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused, who otherwise becomes entitled to this concession.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. HBT/I-17/L Bail granted.