2011 SCMR 1619 (PLP)
SHAHID FAROOQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 1619 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ |
| Parties | SHAHID FAROOQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 1619 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 1619 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 1619 (PLP) (SHAHID FAROOQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Ali Abid, Advocate Supreme Court, S.M. Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Tasneem Amin, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 86 dated 26-2-2009 under sections 302/ 364/324/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station City Toba, District Toba Tek Singh.
2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that on the fateful day and night the accused named in the F.I.R. armed with firearms, attacked the complainant party, in consequence of which, four persons lost their lives at the spot and one Adnan (injured) succumbed to the injuries and died later.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and that the role attributed to him is that of abetment; that the co-accused similarly placed have been allowed bail and the rule of consistency would require that he also be granted bail. He further submitted that despite a lapse of almost two years, the trial has not concluded and in fact so far not a single witness has been examined.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned Additional Prosecutor-General opposed the petition by submitting that petitioner was named in the supplementary statement got recorded by Adnan injured who died later, the very next day and attributed the specific role of firing at the latter. They submit that the trial has commenced and statements of nine witnesses have been recorded but they could not be cross-examined on account of non-availability of learned counsel for the accused.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we find that petitioner is specifically named by one of the victims of the assault who succumbed to the injuries and died later. His case, therefore, is distinguishable from that of the one's who have been allowed bail. We also find that as per report of the Trial Court, the trial has commenced and nine witnesses have been examined. In the afore-referred circumstances, we do not find it a fit case for bail. The petition lacking in merit is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. M.H./S-32/SC Leave refused.