2017 PLP 964 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 964 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Sami Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 964 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 964 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Sami Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 964 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Azeem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Scope
Deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage was not permissible.
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 337-A(vi), 337-A(ii), 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 148 & 149
Qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-damighah, causing shajjah-i-mudihah, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, causing damiyah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, common intention
Allegation in the FIR was that accused allegedly inflicted blow with iron-rod on the head of injured and also caught hold the brother of complainant whereupon his co-accused had inflicted hatchet blow on his head
Admittedly, accused along with his two brothers had been involved in the case, so possibility could not be ruled out that the complainant had involved the accused petitioner by widening the net, which was common practice
Accused had not caused any injury to the deceased
Vicarious liability of the accused petitioner or his sharing common intention with co-accused for committing murder of the deceased would be determined by the Trial Court after evidence
Accused was previous non-convict
Accused was behind the bars without any fruitful progress in his trial
Investigation had been completed and accused was no more required for investigation
Further incarceration of accused in jail would not serve any purpose
Mere heinousness of offence was no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who otherwise was entitled for the same
Accused was granted bail accordingly. Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State 1996 SCMR 1125 rel. Rana Shafique, DDPP and Haq Nawaz ASI for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Muhammad Ramazan has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.20/2016 dated 15.01.2016 under sections 302, 337-A(vi), 337-A(ii), 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Pir Mahal District Toba Tek Singh.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that he allegedly inflicted blow with iron-rod on the head of Naseer injured which injury falls under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. and carries maximum punishment upto five years only. Allegedly, petitioner also caught holds the brother of complainant whereupon his co-accused Lal inflicted hatchet blow on his head. Admittedly, the petitioner along with his two brothers has been involved in this case so possibility cannot be ruled out of consideration that the complainant has involved the petitioner by widening the net which is common practice in our society. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased, so vicarious liability of the petitioner or his sharing common intention with his co-accused for committing murder of the deceased shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. In this respect, reliance can be placed on Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State 1996 SCMR 1125. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since 20.03.2016 without any fruitful progress in his trial. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. Nobody could be kept in jail for an indefinite period. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who otherwise becomes entitled for this concession.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his 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.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. JK/M-180/L Bail granted.