2004 PLP 1732 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD AMJAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1732 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMJAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1732 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1732 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1732 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AMJAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Sarwar Nihung for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 15th January, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Allegation against accused who were brothers, was that they raised Lalkara and also held deceased from his arm while their co accused, who was armed with .12‑bore double‑barrel gun, caused injury on the person of deceased which proved fatal‑‑‑No injury was attributed to accused‑‑‑Whether accused could have held the deceased from his arms or not would be determined by Trial Court at the time of trial after recording evidence‑‑‑Both accused were also injury and prosecution had not explained their injuries‑‑‑Police in three investigations had found accused innocent‑‑‑Case against accused was of further enquiry falling under subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr. P. C. ‑‑‑Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances. Abdul Rehman Madni for the Complainant. Masood Sadiq Mirza for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Ghulam Sarwar Nihung for Petitioners. Abdul Rehman Madni for the Complainant. Masood Sadiq Mirza for the State. Date of hearing: 15th January, 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners and their co accused, namely, Akbar Ali are real brothers inter se, that allegation against the petitioners was that they raised Lalkara and also held the deceased from his arms while their co‑accused, namely, Akbar Ali who was armed with .12 bore double barrel gun caused an injury on the person of the deceased, which proved fatal, that petitioners have also been found innocent by the police in three investigations and that case of the present petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioners are named in the F.I.R., they have facilitated the commission of offence, that if they had not held the deceased from his arms then, their co‑accused could not have fired at the deceased that challan has been submitted in the trial Court, case is fixed for evidence for tomorrow, that both the petitioners were also injured, they were got medically examined, so their presence is proved at the spot.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. No injury is attributed to the present petitioners. It will be determined by the trial Court at the time of trial after recording the evidence whether the petitioners could have held the deceased from his arms or not. Both the petitioners were also injured and the prosecution has not explained their injuries and moreover, the police in three investigations have found them innocent. According to section 497, Cr.P.C. any accused even charged with an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or 10 years and if his case is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. then he can be granted bail at any stage. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted. Petitioners are allowed bail subject to furnishing bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000, (Fifty thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. However, a direction is given to she trial Court that if any accused‑petitioner absents himself intentionally from the trial Court, then, trial Court can cancel his bail. H.B.T./M‑214/L Bail granted.