2011 PLP 1943 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1943 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1943 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 1943 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1943 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Khalid Habib Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 20th June, 2011.
- Asif Javed Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 25-3-2011 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.850-B of 2011).
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/354/452/506/ 337-F(v) / 337-A(i) / 337-A(ii) / 337-L(2) / 324 / 147/148
Qatl-e-amd, criminal assault on woman, trespassing, criminal intimidation, Ghayr-Jaifah Hashimah, Shajjah-i-Khafifah, Shajjah-i-Mudihah, other hurts, attempt to qatl-e-amd and rioting
Free fight
Determination of individual liability
Case was that of free fight entailing individual liability and no injury was attributed to any accused
Effect
If no specific injury was attributed to any of the accused persons then it was to be seen as to what individual liability the accused could be saddled with
Investigation of the case had already been finalized and Challan was submitted thus physical custody of accused persons was not required for the purposes of investigation
Case against accused persons called for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of S. 497(2) Cr.P.C.
Bail was allowed. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab with Shahbaz, S.-I. for the State. Asif Javed Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
Through this petition Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Razzaq and Abdul Khaliq petitioners have sought leave to appeal against the order dated 25-3-2011 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 850-B of 2011 whereby post-arrest bail was refused to the petitioners in case F.I.R. No. 463 registered at Police Station Barki, District Lahore on 6-9-2010 in respect of offences under sections 302/354/452/506/337-F(v) / 337-A(i) / 337-A(ii)/337-L(2)/324/ 147/148, P.P.C.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance.
3. We have observed that no specific injury had been attributed to the petitioners in the F.I.R. and the allegations levelled against them were couched in generalized and collective terms. The criminal case in hand has three versions, one advanced by the local police, another advanced by the petitioners' party and yet another put forward by the party adverse to the petitioners. Six persons belonging to the petitioners' party and seven persons belonging to the party adverse to the petitioners had received injuries in the incident in issue and each of the three versions advanced in this case contains a different story. A perusal of the F.I.R. prima facie creates an irresistible impression that the case in hand was a case of a free fight entailing individual liability and if no specific injury stands attributed to any of the petitioners then it is yet to be seen as to what individual liability they can be saddled with. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and a Challan has been submitted and, thus; physical custody of the petitioners is not required at this stage for the purposes of investigation. In the circumstances of this case mentioned above we have found that the case against the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. For what has been discussed above the delay in filing of this petition is condoned, this petition is accepted and converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and, resultantly , the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. M.H./M-56/SC Bail allowed.