2017 PLP 249 (YLRN)
AZHAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 249 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) |
| Bench Members | Abdul Sami Khan, J |
| Parties | AZHAR HUSSAIN — 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 PLP 249 (YLRN)?
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 PLP 249 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) bench comprising: Abdul Sami Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 249 (YLRN) (AZHAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Waheed Anjum for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 34, 337-L(2), 337-A(i) & 337-F(vi)
Qatl-i-amd, common intention, causing hurt, shajjah-i-khafifah, munaqqilah
Case being of bail after arrest, deeper appreciation was not allowed
Allegation against accused was that he, while armed with hatchet, inflicted the injury on the wrist of left arm of the complainant; which injury was declared by the Doctor to be under S.337-L(2), P.P.C., and was bailable offence
Accused had not caused any injury to the deceased
Vicarious liability of accused or sharing common intention by him with co-accused for committing murder of the deceased, would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence
Accused, who was previous non-convict was behind the bars since 25-3-2015 without any fruitful progress in his trial
Investigation of the case was completed and accused was no more required for further investigation
No body could be kept in jail for inordinate period
Further incarceration of accused in jail, would not serve any useful purpose
Mere heinousness of offence was no ground to refuse bail to accused, who otherwise had become entitled for concession of bail
Case of accused having become one of further inquiry, he was granted bail, in circumstances. [Paras. 2 & 3 of the judgment] Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State 1996 SCMR 1125 rel. Sheikh Istajabat Ali, Dy. P.-G. for the State and Azhar, A.S.I. with record.
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.330/2015 dated 07.10.2015 under sections 337L(2), 337A(i), 337F(i), 337F(vi), 302, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Talagang District Chakwal .
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. The allegation against the petitioner is that he while armed with hatchet inflicted the injury on the wrist of left arm of Tanvir Ahmad complainant which injury was declared by the Doctor as 337L(2), P.P.C. which is bailable in nature. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased, so vicarious liability of the petitioner or sharing common intention by him with his co-accused for committing murder of the deceased shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. In this respect, reliance can be placed on Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State 1996 SCMR 1125 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Court has held as under:-- Accused despite being allegedly armed with deadly weapons like rifle, gun and hatchet had only caused simple blunt injuries to some of the prosecution witnesses using the wrong side of their- weapons
Question whether the accused in such circumstances shared common intention with co-accused who had caused death of the deceased needed further inquiry
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal in circumstances and accused were admitted to bail accordingly. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since 25.03.2015 without any fruitful progress in his trial. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. Nobody could be kept in jail for an indefinite period. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who other becomes entitled for 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 his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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/A-43/L Bail granted.