2011 YLR 857 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD TANAZIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 YLR 857 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Muhammad Tariq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TANAZIR HUSSAIN — 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 2011 YLR 857 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 YLR 857 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Tariq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 YLR 857 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD TANAZIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Asif Chaudhary for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.341/324/34
Criminal trespass and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd
Complainant was examined on the same day
Medico-legal report showed that lacerated entry wound of firearms was on the right thigh of the complainant and was also blackening around the entry wound
Complainant's version was that accused fired while standing outside the car and the bullet hit the complainant after passing through the door of vehicle
If the circumstances would be such, there would have no blackening around the entry wound of the complainant
Investigating Officer had admitted that no empty was recovered from the place of occurrence
Accused was behind the bars for the last more than 8 months
Challan of the case had already been submitted in the court
Accused was no more required for further investigation; his further detention, would not serve any useful purpose
Glaring conflict between the contents of F.I.R. and medico-legal report., had made the case of accused of further inquiry
Accused was allowed bail, in circumstances. Tanveer Mehmood, D.P.-G. with Allah Yar, S.-I. Sajjad Ahmad Bhatti for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--The petitioner seeks his bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.693 of 2009 dated 6-9-2009 for offences under sections 341/324/34, P.P.C. registered with police station Westridge, Rawalpindi.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused armed with fire-arms made an attempt to kill the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent, he has not committed any offence. Further contends that the medico legal report contradicts the contents of F.I.R. The provision of section 324, P.P.C. does not attract. The petitioner is behind the bar for the last more than six months. He is no more required by the police, therefore, the petitioner be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The allegation against the petitioner is that while standing outside the car, he fired at the complainant. The bullet crossed the door of the car and hit on the thigh of the complainant and also injured the other legs.
7. The complainant was examined on the same day i.e. 6-9-2009 at 12-45 a.m. According to the medico legal report, there was lacerated entry wound of firearm on the right thigh of the complainant and there was also blackening around the entry wound. According to the version of the complainant, the petitioner fired while standing outside the car and the bullet hit the complainant after passing through the door of vehicle. If the circumstances would be such there would have no blackening around the entry wound of the complainant. The Investigating Officer has admitted that no empty was recovered from the place of occurrence. The petitioner was arrested on 3-10-2009 a period of more than 6-months have lapsed. The alleged bullet hit on the non-vital part of the complainant. Challan of the case has already been submitted in the court. The petitioner is no more required for further investigation. His further detention will not serve any useful purposes. Such a glaring conflict between the contents of F.I.R. and MLR makes the case of the petitioner of further inquiry. Resultantly, the petitioner is allowed bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-382/L Bail granted.