2012 PLP 646 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ESSA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 646 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ESSA — 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 PLP 646 (SCMR)?
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 PLP 646 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 646 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ESSA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Mohabbat Ali Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji M. Rafi Siddiquie, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 20th February, 2012.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order dated 5-10-2011 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.12530-B of 2011).
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(i)/337-F(iii)/334
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, itlaf-i-udw
High Court dismissed pre-arrest bail application of accused with the reasoning that there was no malice on part of the complainant to rope the accused
F.I.R. was lodged eight days after the alleged injuries to the prosecution witness and such delay had not been explained
Said witness did not appear before the medical board
Offences alleged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.
Possibility of accused having been roped along with the other accused as a result of malice existed
Supreme Court converted the petition into appeal and admitted the accused to pre-arrest bail, in circumstances. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.-G., Punjab and Maqbool Hussain, A.S.-I. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioner, Muhammad Essa, is one of the accused in case F.I.R. No.301 of 2011 lodged by complainant Maqbool Ahmed, under sections 337-F(i), 337-F(iii) read with section 334, P.P.C., at Police Station Qaboola Sharif, Tehsil Arif Wala, District Pakpattan. The F.I.R. was lodged eight (08) days after the alleged injuries caused to the witness Muhammad Khalid. Even according to the prosecution, there is no explanation for this inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. Furthermore, even in the impugned order, it has been noted that although a medical board was constituted to examine Muhammad Khalid, he did not appear before it.
2. The offences in the case do not fall within the prohibitory clause. The reason given by the High Court for denying bail to the petitioner is that there is no malice on the part of the complainant, therefore, the concession of pre-arrest bail must be denied to the petitioner.
3. In view of the facts which are noted above and in particular the inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R coupled with the nature of injuries, it does, prima facie, appear that the petitioner may possibly have been roped in along with the other accused as a result of malice.
4. In these circumstances, we convert this petition into appeal and allow the same. The petitioner is admitted to pre-arrest bail upon furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. M.W.A./M-15/SC Bail granted.