2012 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE — 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 2012 P Cr (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 2012 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: 2012 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Arshad for Petitioner.
- 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has wrongly been involved in this case. The contents of F.I.R. are mala fide. It is admitted fact between the parties that parties are litigating with each other and case F.I.R. No.127 of 2007 under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. is registered against the complainant. The story mentioned in the F.I.R. is highly doubtful. MLC shows the injury attributed to petitioner falls under sections 337-A(i), 337-L(2), P.P.C. which are bailable. The petitioner is a government employee and there is no apprehension of his abscondance.
- 6. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role. MLR shows that complainant's 1st finger is broken whereas the contents of F.I.R. shows that it is the thumb of complainant which was fractured. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that the story of F.I.R. does not match with the MLR. No doubt MLR shows that 1st finger of complainant is fractured but it is admitted fact that complainant has received injuries with iron rod. Iron rod is yet to be recovered from the petitioner. At the pre-arrest bail stage deeper appreciation of the allegation cannot be looked into, parameters of pre-arrest bail and post arrest bail are different. Further the petitioner's bail was dismissed on merits by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozwala and petitioner again filed the application without mentioning this fact before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The behaviour of petitioner shows that he is playing hide and seek with the courts, hence prima facie he is not entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(i)/337-F(v)/ 337-L(2)/148/149
Shajjah-i-Khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, other hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly
Pre-arrest bail, recalling of
Assault in court premises with iron rod
Accused nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role
Injury (fracture) described in F.I.R. not matching the injury (fracture) shown in Medico Legal Report but fact of injuries received with iron rod admitted
Iron rod yet to be recovered
Accused filing subsequent bail application before the court below without disclosing dismissal of the first application on merits
Effect
Bail application of the accused was dismissed and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to him was withdrawn.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.
The petitioner Muhammad Shafique son of Muhammad Rafique, seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.463 of 2012 dated 12-5-2012 registered under sections 337-A(i), F(v), L(2), 148, 149, P.P.C. at Police Station Ferozwala District Sheikhupura.
2. As per story of F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that he while armed with iron rod along with his co-accused persons assaulted upon the complainant and caused him injuries.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has wrongly been involved in this case. The contents of F.I.R. are mala fide. It is admitted fact between the parties that parties are litigating with each other and case F.I.R. No.127 of 2007 under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. is registered against the complainant. The story mentioned in the F.I.R. is highly doubtful. MLC shows the injury attributed to petitioner falls under sections 337-A(i), 337-L(2), P.P.C. which are bailable. The petitioner is a government employee and there is no apprehension of his abscondance.
4. Learned D.P.-G. assisted by learned counsel for complainant opposed the bail application and submits that complainant's finger is fractured, the injury is directly attributed to petitioner, the petitioner along with his co-accused beaten the complainant in the court premises and as such he is not entitled for confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role. MLR shows that complainant's 1st finger is broken whereas the contents of F.I.R. shows that it is the thumb of complainant which was fractured. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that the story of F.I.R. does not match with the MLR. No doubt MLR shows that 1st finger of complainant is fractured but it is admitted fact that complainant has received injuries with iron rod. Iron rod is yet to be recovered from the petitioner. At the pre-arrest bail stage deeper appreciation of the allegation cannot be looked into, parameters of pre-arrest bail and post arrest bail are different. Further the petitioner's bail was dismissed on merits by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozwala and petitioner again filed the application without mentioning this fact before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The behaviour of petitioner shows that he is playing hide and seek with the courts, hence prima facie he is not entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail.
7. In view of above, this bail application is dismissed and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioner vide order dated 6-7-2012 is withdrawn. M.W.A./M-257/L Petition dismissed.