2017 P Cr (PLP)
IFTIKHAR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IFTIKHAR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2017 P Cr (PLP) (IFTIKHAR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Shahid for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, common intention
Allegation against accused was that he was driving rickshaw on which the co-accused had come at the place of occurrence
Injury which caused death of deceased was attributed to co-accused
Accused had not caused any injury to deceased
Vicarious liability would be determined by Trial Court after recording evidence
Abscondance was no ground to refuse bail
Accused was previous non-convict and was never involved in any other case
Nothing had been recovered from accused during investigation
Accused's further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose
Bail was granted accordingly. [Para. 2 of the judgment]
S. 497
Effect
Abscondance was no ground to refuse bail if otherwise accused became entitled to grant of bail. [Para. 2 of the judgment]
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.109/2003 dated 21.09.2003 under sections 302, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Esa Khel, District Mianwali.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that although the petitioner is named in FIR yet no specific role has been attributed to him therein and only allegation against him is that he was driving rickshaw on which the accused came at the place of occurrence. The injury which caused the death of Aziz Ullah deceased is attributed to co-accused Arshad Mehmood. The petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased. Possibility of widening the net by the complainant cannot be ruled out of consideration. As far as vicarious liability of the petitioner along with his co-accused for committing murder of Aziz Ullah deceased is concerned, it is yet to be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence as to whether it was in the knowledge of the petitioner that his co-accused were going to commit murder of the deceased. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner remained absconder for long period of thirteen years is concerned, suffice it to observe here that people do abscond due to fear of police. It is settled law that mere absconsion is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise the accused becomes entitled to the grant of bail. Reliance can be placed upon 2009 SCMR
299. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. He is behind the bars since 26.06.2016. During investigation nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. Investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose.
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 furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two 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. WA/I-34/L Bail granted.