2008 PLP 1854 (YLR)
AZHAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1854 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zafar Iqbal Chaudhary, J |
| Parties | AZHAR — 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 1854 (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 1854 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zafar Iqbal Chaudhary, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1854 (YLR) (AZHAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Allegation against accused was that he fired, but same did not hit anyone
Accused was in judicial lock-up since 30-5-2007, but his trial had not commenced
Police Officer present in the court after consulting the record could not explain whether any empty was recovered from the place of occurrence or not
In absence of any empty from the place of occurrence, the recovery of rifle in the case did not possess any corroborative value because without matching the empty with the rifle, it could not be said with any degree of certainty that the recovered rifle was the one which had been used in the occurrence
Whether the recovered rifle was proper corroborative piece of evidence against accused or not would be seen at the time of trial
All said facts rendered the case against accused to be one of further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C.--Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Mian Ismat Ullah, D.P.-G. for the State with Javai Khalid, A.S.-I. with record.
Judgment & Decree
ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.--Through this petition Azhar petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.609 registered at Police Station Bhalwal, District Sargodha on 6-9-2006 for offences under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case on account of mala fide of the complainant as well as connivance with the local police. According to the F.I.R. the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased or P.W. and the evidence collected by the prosecution during the investigation is also not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of offences alleged against him.
3. On the other hand learned D.P.G. submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and has been ascribed with specific role. According to the F.I.R. he made fire which could not achieve his aim. Though he has not caused any injury to the deceased but keeping in view his act and participation in the occurrence he is not entitled to be released on post-arrest bail by this Court. The offences also fall within the prohibitory clause.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it is noticed that the allegation against the petitioner is that he fired but the same did not hit to anyone. The petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 30-5-2007 but his trial has not commenced so far. Javed Khalid, A.S-I. present in the Court after consulting the record could not explain whether any empty was recovered from the place of occurrence or not. He states that only rifle was recovered from the accused during the investigation of this case. I am afraid that in absence of any empty from the place of occurrence the recovery of rifle in this case does not possess any corroborative value because without matching the empty with the rifle it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the recovered rifle is the one which has been used in the occurrence. Moreover it would be seen at the time of trial whether the recovered rifle is proper corroborative piece of evidence against the petitioner or not. All these facts render the case against the petitioner to be one of further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-35/L Bail granted.