2010 P Cr (PLP)
SARFRAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SARFRAZ 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 2010 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 2010 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2010 P Cr (PLP) (SARFRAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rai Salah-ud-Din Kharal for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324 & 337-D
Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd
Accused was brother of deceased husband of the victim and there was no chance of his false implication in the case by the complainant
Victim had no issue out of her marriage with deceased who was the brother of accused
Allegation that accused wanted to murder the victim so that she could not inherit the estate of her deceased husband, could not be brushed aside, in circumstances
Weapon of offence i.e. pistol had been recovered from accused, which, prima facie proved the causing of a fire-arm injury by accused to the victim
Injury sustained by the victim had been declared as "Jaifah", which was punishable with ten years of imprisonment as provided in S.337-D, P.P.C.
Accused was also alleged to have committed the offence falling within the mischief of S.324, P.P.C., punishment of which also fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Accused had remained absconder for at least one year and eight months prior to his arrest
No doubt, the bail could not be refused to an accused merely on the account of abscondence, but in the present case, accused even otherwise was not entitled to the grant of bail on merits
Accused, prima facie had a motive to commit qatl-i-amd of the victim
While deciding a bail application, the court had to make a tentative assessment of the available matter/evidence
Accused seemed to be a habitual offender as at least two other F. I. Rs. under various sections of P.P.C. stood registered against him
Reasonable grounds existed for believing that accused was guilty of offence, punishment of which fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.
Accused being not entitled to be released on bail, petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.
The instant post-arrest bail petition has been filed on behalf of Sarfraz Ahmad, who is behind the bars, in a case arising out of F.I.R. No.196 of 2008, dated 16-4-2008., registered in Police Station Saddar Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh, under section 324 P.P.C.
2. Succinctly, the allegation, levelled by the complainant in the F.I.R., against the petitioner is that on 15-4-2008, at about 7.00 a. m. Sarfraz Ahmad/petitioner mounted a murderous assault on Mst. Salma Ahmad by firing a shot with his pistol, which hit the victim on left side of her abdomen. The victim fell down on the floor after being seriously injured, whereupon the accused fled away from the scene of the occurrence in a vehicle, which was parked outside the house. The complainant alleged that the accused/Sarfraz Ahmad attempted to commit the murder of his sister, namely Mst. Salma Ahmad, so that she could not claim her share out of the estate of her deceased husband, namely, Ch. Bashir Ahmad, who was the brother of the accused/present petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. as the occurrence took place on 15-4-2008, where the F.I.R. was lodged on 16-4-2008. He further submitted that the time of examination of the injured on the Medico legal Report is written as 6.20 a.m., on 15-4-2008, whereas, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about 7.00 a.m. on 15-4-2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner denied that there was any intention on the part of the present petitioner to kill Mst. Salma Ahmad as he did not repeat the fire. He argued that the petitioner is in the judicial lock up since 12-1-2010 and no longer required for any further investigation. Lastly, he argued that the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General as well as the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the instant bail petition on the ground that the accused/petitioner remained absconder for a period of at least one year and eight months and he was arrested on 9-1-2010. They further submitted that weapon of offence i.e. pistol has been recovered from the accused. They maintained that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for ten years and as such, his case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. They argued that the accused/petitioner is a habitual offender as at least two other F.I.Rs bearing No. 61, dated 5-2-2007 and No.22/2010, dated 11-1-2010, stand registered against him in Police Station City Gojra. Lastly, they submitted that the injury caused by the present petitioner, to the victim/Mst. Salma Ahmad, has been declared as "Jaifah" falling under section 337-D P.P.C.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is the brother of the deceased husband of the victim/Mst. Salma Bibi and there is no chance of his false implication in the instant case by the complainant. The victim Mst. Salma Ahmad had no issue out of her marriage with Ch. Bashir Ahmad (deceased) who was the brother of the present petitioner. In these circumstances, the allegation that Sarfraz Ahmad/petitioner wanted to murder Mst. Salma Ahmad, so that she could not inherit the estate of her deceased husband, cannot be brushed aside. Secondly, the weapon of offence i.e. pistol has been recovered from the present petitioner, which, prima facie, proves the causing of a fire-arm injury by the present petitioner to Mst. Salma Ahmad. Thirdly, the injury sustained by the victim has been declared as "Jaifah", which is punishable with ten years of imprisonment, as provided in section 337-D P.P.C. Moreover, the present petitioner is also alleged to have committed the offence falling within the mischief of section 324, P.P.C., punishment of which also falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
7. It is also worth-consideration that the petitioner has remained absconder for at least one year and eight months, prior to his arrest. No doubt, the bail cannot be refused to an accused merely on account of absconsion but in the present case, the accused/present petitioner is even otherwise not entitled to the grant of bail, on merits. The present petitioner, prima facie, had a motive to commit Qatl-e-amd of Mst. Salma Bibi. While deciding a bail application, the Court has to make a tentative assessment of the available matter/evidence. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused did not repeat the fire is of no consequence at this stage. Finally, the present accused seems to be a habitual offender as at least two other F.I.R., under various sections of P.P.C., stood registered against him.
8. In view of above, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused/present petitioner is guilty of an offence, punishment of which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the instant post-arrest bail petition filed on behalf of Sarfraz Ahmad, is dismissed.
9. However, a direction is being issued to the learned trial Court for conclusion of the trial against the accused/present petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of this order. H.B.T./S-55/L Bail refused.