2002 PLP 692 (YLR)
BAGH ALI and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 692 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | BAGH ALI and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 692 (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 2002 PLP 692 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 692 (YLR) (BAGH ALI and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Ali Chohan for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 14th February, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 337‑A(i), 337‑F(i) (iii) (iv) (v), 337‑L(ii), 367, 148 & 149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Matter was reported to police after a delay of more than three days‑‑‑All offences except offence under S.367, P. P. C. did not attract prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr. P. C. ‑‑‑All accused persons though were shown to be armed with pistol and guns, but complainant did not receive any fire‑arm injury on his person‑‑ Injuries on person of complainant except one injury, were either on his elbow or on legs and said one injury which was on left ear, was declared to be "Shujja‑e‑Khafifah "‑‑ Question as to whether any offence under S. 397, P. P. C. in circumstances of case was committed or not would be determined by Trial Court after recording evidence‑‑‑Bail could not be withheld as punishment‑‑‑Bail was granted to accused. Rashid Naseem Sheikh for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Rashid Naseem Sheikh for the State. Date of hearing: 14th February, 2002. Bagh Ali son of Wali Muhammad, Riaz Ahmad and Mukhtar Ahmad, sons of Bagh Ali, petitioners, have sought their post arrest in a case F.I.R. No.334 of 2001, registered at Police Station Saddar Pakpattan Sharif, on 27‑6‑2001, for offences under sections 337‑A(i), 337‑F(i), (iii), (iv), (v), 337‑L (ii), 367, 109, 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. According to the F.I.R., all the petitioners, who were armed with different kind of weapons forcibly took Muhammad Sharif, complainant‑injured, in the Ihatta of Bagh Ali, petitioner No.1, and inflicted injuries.
3. The earlier bail application of the petitioners was not pressed for the time being and dismissed for the same reason on 7‑11‑2001.
4. Bagh Ali and Mukhtar Ahmed, petitioners were arrested on 27‑6‑2001, while Riaz Ahmad, petitioner was arrested on 29‑6‑2001. Now they are in Judicial Lock‑up after completion of investigation.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the annexures appended with the file. It has been noticed that the matter was reported to the police after a delay of more than three days. All the offences except the offence under section
367. P.P.C. do not attract the prohibitory clause or section 497, Cr.P.C. Although all the accused were shown to be armed with pistol and guns yet the complainant did not receive any fire‑arm injury on his person. The injuries on the person of the complainant except injury No. 1 are either on his elbow or on the legs: Only injury No. 1 was on the left ear, which was declared to be "Shuja‑e Khafifa". Whether any offence under section 367, P.P.C., in the circumstances of the case was committed or not would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence.
6. Considering the factum of delay and that all the offences, except offence under section 367, P.P.C. do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the accepted principle of law that the bail cannot be withheld as punishment, I am inclined to accept this petition and admit the petitioners to bail, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs. One Lac, each with one surety each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./B‑111/L Bail granted.