2010 PLP 721 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ISLAM and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 721 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Akram Qureshi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISLAM and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 721 (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 2010 PLP 721 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Akram Qureshi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 721 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ISLAM and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/337-F(ii)/448/511/337-L(2)/337-H(2)/148/149
Qatl-i-amd, badi'ah, punishment for other hurt, punishment for hurt by rash or negligent act and punishment for house tresspass
Accused were armed with fire-arms and first shot attributed to accused hit on the left side of face of the injured and fire shot by co-accused remained ineffective
Medico legal report had indicated that skin deep rounded wound was noticed on the person of injured which was Shujah-e-Khafifah, creating a bailable offence
Accused did not repeat the second fire and similar was the case of co-accused
Had both accused persons been equipped with an intention to commit Qatl-i-amd of prosecution witnesses, hardly any thing was in their way to have fired at them and caused their death
Question of the applicability of S.324, P.P.C. was a matter of further probe
Accused persons who were in judicial lock-up, their person was no more required for the purpose of investigation--Offences under Ss.337-F(ii)/L-(ii)/H(ii)/448/511/148/149, P.P.C. were bailable
Accused person having made out a case for the grant of bail they were admitted to bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Ali Khan alias Mamdal v. The State and 2 others 2007 PCr.LJ 217, Muhammad Sarwar and others v. The State 1998 SD 32; Muhammad Nawaz v. The State 1999 MLD 1526 and Muhammad Ramzan and others v. The State PLD 1996 Lah. 126 ref. Malik M. Rafique Khokhar, D.P.G. for the State along with Zulfiqar Ahmad, S.-I. Muhammad Zawar Shah Qureshi for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI, J.
The petitioners seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.490 dated 18-11-2008 registered. under sections 324/337F(i)/L(ii)/ H(ii)/448/511/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Sadar Burewala District Vehari.
2. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioners and their co-accused are that they while armed with deadly weapons came along with their cattle and started tying their cattle inside the wall of Mill. When the complainant stopped them from doing so, they started abusing him. Muhammad Islam caused a fire which hit Irshad Ahmad at left side of his face. Second fire was caused by Muhammad Aslam at Muhammad Faiz who saved himself by lying on the ground. Muhammad Ashraf caused fire shot at the complainant but the complainant saved himself by moving behind the wall. Naeem and Jamal Din also caused fire shots. Thereafter, Muhammad Aslam and Naeem caught hold of Irshad Ahmad. Muhammad Aslam gave blow of rifle butt at right knee of Irshad Ahmad while Naeem inflicted pistol butt blow at left calf of Irshad Ahmad.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it has been noticed by this Court that the petitioners were armed with fire-arms. The fire shot attributed to Muhammad Islam petitioner No.1 hit on the left side of face of Irshad Ahmad. The fire shot by Muhammad Naeem remained ineffective. A perusal of the medico legal report indicates that a skin deep rounded wound was noticed on the person of Irshad Ahmad which was Shujah-e-Khafifah creating a bailable offence. Muhammad Islam petitioner did not repeat the second fire. Similar is the case of Muhammad Naeem. Had both the petitioners been equipped with an intention to commit Qatl-i-amd of P.Ws. there was hardly anything in their way to shot fire at them and caused their death. The question of the applicability of section 324, P.P.C. is a matter of further probe. The petitioners were arrested in this case, sent to judicial lock up and at present, their person is no more required for the purpose of investi gation. Offences under sections 337F(i)/L(ii)/H(ii)/448/511/ 148/149, P.P.C. are bailable. In these circumstances, the petitioners have made out a case for the grant of bail. Though, the learned counsel for the complainant relies upon the cases of Muhammad Ali Khan alias Mamdal v. The State and 2 others (2007 PCr.LJ 217), Muhammad Sarwar and others v. The State (1998 SD 32), Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (1999 MLD 1526) and Muhammad Ramzan and others v. The State (PLD 1996 Lah. 126), but I am afraid that the facts and circumstances of the stated precedents are distinguishable and not applicable to the present case.
4. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. H.B.T./M-118/L Bail granted.