2008 PLP 905 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 905 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 905 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 905 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 905 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- N.A. Butt for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 34 & 109
Allegation against accused was that he was present at the time of occurrence and raised Lalkara
No recovery had been effected from accused during the course of investigation
Accused though was shown in the F.I.R. as armed with rifle, but Investigating Officer had failed to ascribe him any active role except his presence empty-handed at the spot
Motive was also not attributed to accused
Accused was behind the bars since his arrest and trial had not commenced
Such circumstances had provided sufficient grounds for further inquiry into guilt of accused
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHAHBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.
The learned counsel has filed this bail application for post arrest bail of Muhammad Afzal, petitioner. The petitioner stands named in F.I.R. No. 386 of 2006, dated 5-7-2006. The said F.I.R. was registered under sections 302, 34 and 109, P.P.C. at Police Stations Kot Moman, District Sargodha.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., the complainant and his deceased son, Shahzad Ahmad Naeem were sowing in their fields that suddenly petitioner and two other co-accused appeared. Co-accused Fayyaz fired three shots with his .12 bore gun hitting on the back of deceased, Shahzad Ahmad Naeem. According to the F.I.R., the deceased expired as a result of the said injuries. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that the raised lalkara.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab. As noted above, the allegation against the petitioner is that he was present at the time of occurrence and raised lalkara. During the course of investigation, no recovery has been effected from him. Though he is shown in the F.I.R. as armed with rifle, but the Investigation Officer has failed to ascribe him any active role except his presence empty-handed. For the same reason, no recovery has been effected from him. The motive is also not attributed to him. The petitioner was arrested on 7-9-2006 and since then he has been behind the bars. The trial has not commenced yet. The above circumstances provide sufficient grounds for further inquiry into guilt of the petitioner. Thus, this bail application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released if not required in any other case subject to his furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Area Magistrate. H.B.T./M-58/L Bail granted.