2008 PLP 1088 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1088 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1088 (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 2008 PLP 1088 (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: 2008 PLP 1088 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalid Mahmood Basra and Malik Muhammad Ahsan Karol for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34
Complainant had alleged in the F.I.R that he was removed by the accused from his Tubewell where he was sleeping
Act of removing the complainant on gun-point from his Tubewell to another place and robbing him of the articles by effectively firing at him, had indicated the desperate temperament of accused
Punishment for the offence in question certainly fell under prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C.
Bail petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.
Petitioner seeks post arrest bail through this petition in' case F.I.R. No.278, dated 21-6-2007 under section 324/34, P.P.C., Police Station Sadar Khanewal.
2. Ghulam Sarwar complainant alleged in the F.I.R. that he was removed from his Tubewell where he was sleeping at 1 a.m. in the mid-night by Muhammad Sadiq petitioner who was armed with pistol and his co-accused namely Nawaz and one unknown person and taken to Kacha road at a distance of about 2 squares from his Tubewell. Petitioner fired at him hitting hint on his right knee. Nawaz fired at him which missed the target. The unknown person gave blows with hatchet hitting him on the right wrist, arm and right foot. The accused took out Rs.700 (seven hundred) from his pocket and deprived him of his mobile phone as well. Previous enmity was alleged to be the motive of offence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the story mentioned in the F.I.R. was not believable. If the petitioner and his co-accused had intention of committing Qutl-i-Amad of the complainant, they could have fired at him while he was sleeping and could have accomplished their design. The petitioner had been in the Jail for the last 8 months without any progress in the trial. The fire did not hit the complainant on any vital organ, therefore, he was entitled to bail in the light of case law reported in PLD 2004 SC 477.
4. Opposing the petition, learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner was involved in numerous case of theft. He was nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role was assigned to him. The fire weapon used by him proved his intention to launch murderous assault on the complainant, therefore, he was not entitled to bail in the light of authorities reported in 2005 MLD 823 (Mohammad Arshad v. The State) and 2007 PCr.LJ 1056 (Zahoor Illahi and another v. Shazad Ahmad and another).
5. The act of removing the complainant on gun-pint from his Tubewell to another place and robbing him of the above mentioned articles by further effectively firing at him, indicates the desperate temperament of the petitioner which takes the case away from the circumstances of case-law relied upon by him. The punishment for the offence in question certainly falls under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. This petition is held to be without any force, hence, is dismissed. H.B.T./M-96/L Bail refused.