2007 PLP 2625 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2625 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — 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 2007 PLP 2625 (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 2007 PLP 2625 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2625 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Akram Khan Pitafi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337
Medical evidence was not corroborative with ocular account
Chemical Examiner's report had also not been obtained
Investigating Officer had declared accused innocent
Accused was behind the bars for the last three months
Case of accused being of further inquiry, he was allowed bail. Rao Atif Nawaz for the State.
Judgment & Decree
IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.
The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.348 dated 6-9-2006 registered under section 337, P.P.C. at Police Station, Shah Jamal, District Muzaffargarh.
2. The allegation against the petitioner as contained in the F.I.R. that he committed sodomy with Ishfaq son of the complainant.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the medical report does not support the occurrence as it is stated in the same that there was no mark of violence on the external part of buttocks; that report of the Chemical Examiner has still not been obtained; that the Investigating Officer visited the spot and observed that there were no signs of ruffle; that Investigating Officer Station House Officer as well as the D.S.P. declared the petitioner as innocent; that the petitioner is below the age of 18 years and in this regard a school leaving certificate is produced and as such he is entitled to the relief of bail and in this behalf, reliance is placed upon Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1991 and .that petitioner is behind the bars for the last three months:
4. On the other hand, bail has been opposed by the learned State counsel. However, it conceded that Chemical Examiner's Report has still not been obtained and that one of the P.Ws. Sultan Mehmood had initially implicated the petitioner in his statement recorded on 14-10-2006 but subsequently on 22-11-2006 he withdrew his statement.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Medical evidence does not corroborate with the ocular account Chemical Examiner's report has also not been obtained. The Investigating Officer/Station House Officer/D.S.P. declared the petitioner innocent. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last three months: Therefore, the case of the petitioner becomes of further inquiry.
7. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-327/L Bail granted.