2003 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM NABI alias WALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI alias WALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM NABI alias WALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/148/149
No specific injury to any of deceased persons was attributed to the accused and general role of firing alongwith his co accused at deceased persons had been ascribed to, the accused
No recovery, whatsoever, had been effected from the accused
Accused had also been found innocent in three successive investigations
In view of said facts and particularly finding of innocence recorded by three different police Officers in favour of accused, case of accused was covered by subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into guilt of accused
Accused, who was also previous non-convict was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ghulam Nabi alias Wali petitioner through the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.158, dated 26-5-2002, under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. with Police Station Saddar Chichawatni, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 26-5-2002 at about 12-30 noon, Muhammad Rafique, Nazar, Mian, Wali, Siddique alias Cheen and Manzoor, who were hiding themselves at Adda Kotla Adeeb Shaheed suddenly came out armed with fire-arms and had started indiscriminating firing at Zulfiqar alias Pappu and Riaz alias Rajoo, who sustained injuries on their persons arid succumbed to the same at the spot. The motive behind the occurrence is that the accused had murdered Imtiaz, the brother of the complainant and both the deceased had been pursuing that case and the accused in order to restrain them froth the same lead committed their murder.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that no specific injury to any of the deceased persons has been attributed to him and rather only general role of indiscriminating firing at them has been ascribed to him; that no recovery was effected from him; and that in the three successive investigations, he has been found innocent and so his case is covered within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt; and that he is behind the bars and previous non-convict.
4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R. with specific role of firing at the two deceased persons alongwith his co-accused which resulted into their death; and that the motive is also ascribed to him. He, however, has conceded that he during the three successive investigations has been found innocent.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The fact remains that no specific injury of any of the deceased persons is ascribed to him. The general role of firing alongwith his co accused at the deceased persons has been ascribed to him. Admittedly, no recovery whatsoever, has been effected from him.
7. He admittedly has also been found innocent in the three successive investigations. These were conducted by Javed Ali, D.S.P./ S.D.P.O., Saddar Chichawatni Circle, Muhammad Younis, S.-I./S.H.O. and Muhammad Jameel, S.-I. of the said police station.
8. In view of these facts and particularly the finding of innocence recorded by three different Police Officers in his favour, his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt.
9. He is stated to be behind the bars and previous non-convict. In these circumstances, the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail Bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./G-283/L Bail granted.