2013 PLP 321 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD HANIF — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 321 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rauf Ahmad Sheikh, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 321 (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 2013 PLP 321 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rauf Ahmad Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 321 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD HANIF — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 460, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-e-amd, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons---Bail , refusal of---Order sheet of the case clearly revealed that witnesses had been appearing in the court on different dates of hearing but they could not be examined/cross-examined due to non-availability of the defence counsel or adjournments sought by accused for different reasons---Prosecution could not be held responsible for non-conclusion of the trial---Accused along with his co-accused, having caused qatl-e-amd of an innocent person and injuring others during the commission of a dacoity, was a dangerous criminal within the meaning of the fifth proviso of S.497(1), Cr.P.C---Evidence of eleven witnesses had already been recorded and conclusion of trial in near future was possible---No ground existed to extend concession of bail to accused---Accused was refused bail, in circumstances.
- Ch. Anees-ur-Rehman for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
2011 SCMR 1332 rel. Mian Humayun Aslam, D.P.-G. for the State with Liaqat Ali, A.S.-I. with record. Rao Javed Khurshid for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.737 of 2008 dated 8-8-2008 under sections 302/460/324/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Ferozewala District Sheikhupura.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version as set forth in the F.I.R. recorded on the application of Nazeer Ahmad complainant is that at 2-30 a.m. on 8-8-2008 10 unknown persons made trespass into his house and on alarm raised by the inmates opened firing resulting into injuries to Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Ishrat, out of whom Muhammad Akbar died in the hospital.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner seeks bail only on statutory ground as he is behind the bars for a period more than three years and the trial has yet not reached its logical end without any fault on his part.
4. The learned D.P.G. and the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the petition. It is contended that the witnesses have been appearing in the court but they could not be examined/cross-examined due to non-availability of the learned defence counsel or other delaying tactics adopted by the petitioner and his co-accused persons.
5. Criminal Miscellaneous No.13625/B of 2010 moved by the petitioner has already been dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 17-1-2011. The copy of order sheet clearly reveals that the witnesses have been appearing in the court on different dates of hearing but they could not be examined/cross-examined due to non-availability of the learned defence counsel or adjournments sought by the accused for different reasons. In these circumstances, the prosecution cannot be held responsible for non-conclusion of the trial. Moreover, the petitioner and his co-accused persons caused Qatl-e-Amd of an innocent person and injuries to other during the commission of dacoity. He is a dangerous criminal within the meanings of the 5th proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. as amended through Act No.VIII of 2011. Such elements who have no respect for life and property of others and cause Qatal of innocent persons during dacoities or robberies are not entitled to any relief even on statutory ground. Moreover, evidence of eleven witnesses has already been recorded and the conclusion of trial in near future is possible so no ground to extend the concession of bail at this stage is available. In this respect reliance is placed on 2011 SCMR 1332. The petition is without merits. The same is hereby dismissed. MWA/M-398/L Petition dismissed.