MLD 2012

2012 PLP 1704 (MLD)

ASIM ALI alias CHAHLI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2012-June-14
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2012 PLP 1704 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties ASIM ALI alias CHAHLI — 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 2012 PLP 1704 (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 2012 PLP 1704 (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: 2012 PLP 1704 (MLD) (ASIM ALI alias CHAHLI — 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

  • Talish Umer Javed for Petitioner.
  • Muhammad Akhlaq, D.P.-G. with Yousaf S.-I. for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 224/225/382/353/148/ 149/186

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(b)

Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension, resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person, theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint, in order to the committing of the theft, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, possession of narcotic

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Allegation against the accused and co-accused was that they launched an assault on a raiding police party and snatched the main accused from the custody of the police, and that they snatched a motorcycle from a police constable and fled from the spot of occurrence

Validity

No specific role had been attributed to the accused except for being a member of the mob, which allegedly resorted to rioting

Accused was not found possessing any narcotic substance at the time of his arrest by the police

Contents of the F.I.R. did not divulge as to what was the relationship between the accused and the main accused, who was caught by the police during the raid

Police constable had not alleged in specific terms whether his motorcycle had been stolen or snatched by the accused

Accused and co-accused had been shown to have attacked the police party with different weapons but there was no evidence to believe that any of the members of the police party had received even the slightest scratch

Story contained in the F.I.R. looked bizarre and preposterous

Fact that a heavy contingent of police showed little courage in coping with the situation and apparently wilted under the pressure of a disorderly attack of the accused and co-accused painted a blurry picture of the prosecution case, which brightened the probability of invocation of S.497(2), Cr.P.C, in favour of the accused

No reason existed to believe that the case of the accused was covered by prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C

Bail application of the accused was accepted and he was admitted to bail.

Judgment & Decree

The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.203, dated 20-5-2012, under section 9(b) C.N.S.A., 1997 read with sections 353, 186, 224, 225, 382, 148, 149 P.P.C., registered at Police Station 18-Hazari, District Jhang.

2. Akhtar Ali A.S.-I. received a spy information on 20-5-2012 that Arif Shah alias Dodo Shah posed for an army personnel and sold contraband charas publicly while sitting in a graveyard and if raided upon he could be caught red-handed; on receipt of this information a raid was conducted and Arif Shah alias Dodo Shah was hauled up being in possession of charas weighing 250 grams; on a specific oral signal of the accused, 17 persons, including Asim Ali alias Chahli (petitioner), all armed with dandas, sotas and firearms reached there and launched an assault at the police party by using criminal force to deter them from the discharge of their duty; they snatched accused Arif Shah alias Dodo Shah from the custody of the police, scuffled with the members of the raiding party and tore their uniforms; the above said accused also snatched a motorcycle from Ghulam Dastagir constable and on being checked by the police, they waived their weapons in the air and raised lalkaras that they would kill, whosoever came there way; the accused fled from the spot after the occurrence.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner except for being a member of the mob, which allegedly resorted to rioting. The petitioner was not found possessing any narcotic substance at the time of his arrest by the police. It does not divulge from the F.I.R. as to what relationship, the petitioner had with Arif Shah alias Dodo Shah accused who was caught red-handed by the police, being in possession of charas weighing 250 grams. The allegations against the petitioner are vague, inasmuch as no specific role has been attributed to him nor he appears to have committed a non-bailable offence. It has not been alleged in specific terms by Ghulam Dastagir constable if his motorcycle had been stolen or snatched by the accused-petitioner. All the accused have been shown to have attacked the police party being armed with different weapons but there is no evidence to believe that anyone of the members of the police party had received even the slightest scratch on his person during the occurrence. If none of the participants of the occurrence used his weapon effectively how come they succeeded in viewing Arif Shah alias Dodo Shah escape the police custody. There does not exist any reason to believe that the petitioner's case is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. or his implication in the instant case may be considered above-board. The story contained in the F.I.R. looks bizarre and somewhat preposterous. The circumstances that a heavy contingent of the police showed little courage in coping with the situation and apparently wilted under the pressure of a disorderly attack of the accused, paint a blurred picture of the prosecution case which brightens the probability of invocation of the second proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C., in favour of the accused-petitioner. Therefore, the instant application is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. MWA/A-116/L Bail granted.