2008 PLP 2399 (YLR)
TANVEER HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 2399 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J |
| Parties | TANVEER HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 2399 (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 2008 PLP 2399 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 2399 (YLR) (TANVEER HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mazhar Iqbal Sindhu for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 148 & 149
Case of accused was distinguishable from co-accused who had already been granted bail
In more than one investigations co-accused were found innocent, whereas accused was found guilty
Six prosecution witnesses had already been examined and the trial was likely to be concluded in near future; it would not be appropriate to grant bail to accused at present stage. Muhammad Taqi Khan for the Complainant. Ch. Amjad Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.
The learned counsel seeks post-arrest bail of the petitioner, who stands booked in F.I.R. No.6 of 2007 dated 7-1-2007 at Police Station City B-Division Sheikhupura. The offences alleged in the said F.I.R. are under sections 302, 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R. the allegation against the petitioner is that he caused fire-arm injury on the right leg of Mst. Samra and he also caused firing to the deceased, which hit him in his waist.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner no recovery was effected from the petitioner, no injury is attributed to the deceased; injury attributed to Mst. Samra is simple in nature; and commencement of trial is no bar if the case is otherwise made out for bail. In addition, the learned Counsel further added that co-accused Fiaz etc. have already been granted bail by this Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.2859-B of 2007.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the co-accused already granted bail; injury to Mst. Samra is not denied which establishes participation and presence of the accused in the occurrence; and the trial has already commenced. The' learned counsel for the State also supported the contentions of the learned Counsel for the complainant.
5. I have carefully examined and considered the arguments above mentioned. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the co-accused already granted bail by this Court. In more than one investigations the co-accused were found innocent whereas, the petitioner was found guilty. Moreover right now six prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the trial is likely to be concluded in near future, therefore, at this stage it will not be appropriate to grant this bail application.
6. In view of the above, this bail, application is dismissed. H.B.T./T-8/L Bail refused.