2003 P Cr (PLP)
RASHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RASHID — 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) (RASHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Qamar-ud-Din Safeer for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/109/34
Only role of ineffective firing was attributed to accused and question of his vicarious liability for murder of deceased was to be seen- at the time of trial
Case against accused, in circumstances, was covered under, subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt
Accused was behind the bars for the last about two years and his trial had not even commenced
Case for enlargement of accused on bail having been made out, he was admitted to bail.
Judgment & Decree
Tanveer Haider Buzdar for the State. Rashid, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.464 dated 11-10-1999, under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Mitro, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari.
2. The facts of the case were mentioned by me in the order dated 7-10-2002 recorded in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1981-B of 2002 titled "Muhammad Ramzan alias Akhlaq v. The State". 'The same, therefore, are not repeated here.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that only ineffective firing is attributed to him while no overt act qua the deceased; that the question of his vicariously liable is to be gone into at the time of trial; that he is behind the bars for the last about one year, 11 months and 16 days while so far his trial has not commenced even as is evident from the report received from the learned trial Court; and that he is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.: that he had made at the time of occurrence firing and so is vicariously liable for the murder of the deceased.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The fact remains that only the role of ineffective firing is attributed to him. The question of his vicariously liable for the murder of the deceased is to be seen at the time of trial. His case therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt.
7. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about two years and his trial in the case as yet has not commenced even.
8. 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 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./R-236/L Bail granted.