2009 PLP 910 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 910 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khurshid Anwar Bhinder, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 910 (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 2009 PLP 910 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khurshid Anwar Bhinder, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 910 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Nawab Ali Meo for Petitioner:
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/393/109
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13
Accused though was present at the time of occurrence while armed with .30 bore pistol, but he had only resorted to aerial firing and had not caused any injury to the deceased
No crime empties were recovered from the place of occurrence which could connect accused with commission of the offence
No direct evidence was available against accused regarding his active role
Case of accused, 1 in circumstances, was that of further inquiry into his guilt
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Shafqat Ullah Butt, D.P.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.
Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R No.48 dated 5-2-2007, registered under sections 302/393/109, P.P.C. read with section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance at Police Station Mustafabad, District Kasur.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner are that he along with his accomplices had launched attack on the complainant party and killed Muhammad Jamil while armed with deadly weapons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a previous record-holder, only aerial firing is attributed to him, no specific role has been attributed to him. He further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last one year and six months, as such, case against the petitioner is that of further inquiry into his guilt.
4. Learned D.P.-G while opposing the bail application submits that the petitioner is nominated accused person in the F.I.R. Recovery of pistol has been effected from him and he has also been held guilty in police investigation. He lastly submits that no crime empties were recovered from the place of occurrence which could connect the petitioner with the commission of the said offence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. As is evident from the narration of the F.I.R that the petitioner was present at the time of occurrence while armed with .30-bore pistol but I am afraid, the petitioner had only resorted to aerial firing and he had not caused any injury to the deceased. No crime empties were recovered from the place of occurrence which could connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. There is no direct evidence against him regarding his active role. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. H.B.T./M-103/L Bail granted.