2003 PLP 2011 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 2011 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2011 (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 2003 PLP 2011 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 2011 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Khan Jaskani for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A(ii)/34
Interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Dispute existed over land between the parties and suit by accused was pending against the complainant's side before Civil Court
Accused persons had been ascribed no injury to the injured and only their presence at the spot had been shown-- One of the accused persons had brought forth the cross-version in respect of the occurrence in which the injured had been arrested and sent to judicial lock-up
Was yet to be determined as to who was the aggressor and who was aggressed upon-- Case of the accused, in circumstances, was covered under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into their guilt
Accused had joined the police investigation and were not wanted for any further purpose
Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the accused, was confirmed. Malik Abdul Ghaffar Sial for the State.
Judgment & Decree
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 22-11-2002 at about 6-00 a.m. Muhammad Shafi armed with Soti, Ghulam Rasool with Sota, Mushtaq Ahmad with hatchet and Muhammad Iqbal with Sota in furtherance of their common intention have caused injury to Qaisar Abbas, the son of the complainant. Mushtaq Ahmad inflicted him hatchet blow hitting on his upper right side of the forehead and bleeding started from the wound and he fell down unconscious. On hue and cry, Akhtar Hussain and Nazar Muhammad were attracted to the spot. The accused on seeing them fled away with their weapons to their houses.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is the dispute over the land.
4. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in with mala fide intention on the part of the complainant as civil litigation is going on between them and the complainant party; that they have been ascribed no injury to the injured Qaisar Abbas or anyone else: that their mere presence at the spot has been shown; that cross-version by petitioner No.2/Ghulam Rasool has been advanced and in the same Qaisar Abbas injured has been arrested and sent to judicial lock-up, therefore, it is yet to be determined that who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon; and that they are behind the bars and previous non-convicts.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State had opposed the petition.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
7. Admittedly there is dispute over the land between the parties and the suit filed by the petitioner's side is pending against the complainant's side before the competent Civil Court.
8. They have been ascribed no injury to the injured Qaisar Abbas. Their mere presence at the spot has been shown. The petitioner No.2/Ghulam Rasool brought forth the cross-version in respect of the occurrence and in the same Qaisar Abbas has been arrested and sent to judicial lock-up. It is, therefore, yet to be determined that who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon. Hence, their case is covered under sub section (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further enquiry into their guilt.
9. Admittedly, they have joined the police investigation and are not wanted for any further purpose of the same.
10. In these circumstances, I accept this petition and confirm the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
11. However, they shall join the investigation again if and when so required to do. Interim pre-arrest bail confirmed. H.B.T./M-1811/L