2009 PLP 612 (MLD)
AAMER RASHID and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 612 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AAMER RASHID and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 612 (MLD)?
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 612 (MLD)?
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: 2009 PLP 612 (MLD) (AAMER RASHID and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Tayyib Wattoo for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 498 & 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/148/149
Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Further inquiry--Two of accused persons had been challaned under S.109, P.P.C. and third accused caused simple injury and according to the medical evidence said injury hat! been declared as "Shaja Khafifa"
Another co-accused was not nominated in the F.I.R. and during the police investigation he had been found guilty of the charge
Motive part explained in the F.I.R. had shown that some previous scuffle and dispute existed between the parties and according to the counsel for accused persons registration of the present case was outcome of the mala fide
Mala fide in the case of pre-arrest bail, was simply to be alleged and not to be proved
Case of accused persons being one of further inquiry as envisaged under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused persons, was confirmed.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SATTAR GORAYA, J.
The petitioners were granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail vide order, dated 18-2-2009 in case F.I.R. No.6, dated 2-1-2009, registered under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station City Bhawalnagar.
2. The petitioners Nos.1 and 2, in the course of investigation conducted by the Police, have been found guilty on the charge of abetment and they have been challenged under section, 109, P.P.C. As far Sharafat Ali, he was armed with hatchet and inflicted injury on the person of Fazal Elahi complainant. Muhammad Imran initially was not named in the F.I.R. and during the course of investigation conducted by the police his name has been added. According to the conclusion drawn by the I.O. Muhammad Imran petitioner No.4 by causing firing initiating the whole trouble.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has seriously opposed the application tooth and nail on the ground that all the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. Specific role has been attributed to them and this was promptly lodged F.I.R. and they are not entitled for any concession of bail because no mala fide in specific terms has come out.
4. I have heard the parties in detail and perused the record minutely.
5. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have been challenged under section 109, P.P.C. Sharafat Ali, petitioner No.3, caused simple injury and according to the medical evidence, available on the file, the said injury has been declared as "Shaja-e-Khafifa". Muhammad Imran was not initially nominated in the F.I.R. and during the police investigation certain evidence was collected and he has been found guilty of the charge. According to the facts and circumstances of the ease explained above. The motive part explained in the F.I.R. shows that there was some previous scuffle and dispute between the parties and according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the registration of the instant case is outcome of the mala fide. Needless to say that the mala fide in the case of pre-arrest bail is simply to be alleged and not to be proved. I have come to the conclusion that the case of all four petitioners is one of the further inquiry as envisaged under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. For what has been stated above, the interim pre-arrest bail, already granted to the petitioners by means of order, dated 18-2-2009, is hereby confirmed. H.B.T./A-59/L Bail conferred.