2002 PLP 693 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 3 others‑‑ Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 693 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 3 others‑‑ Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 693 (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 2002 PLP 693 (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: 2002 PLP 693 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 3 others‑‑ Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Arif for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337‑A(ii)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑No overt act was attributed to the accused persons-‑ Prosecution had no objection to the grant of bail to the accused persons‑‑‑Accused were granted bail in circumstances. Muhammad Akmal, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337‑A(ii)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑No overt act was attributed to the accused persons-‑ Prosecution had no objection to the grant of bail to the accused persons‑‑‑Accused were granted bail in circumstances. Rana Muhammad Arif for Petitioners. Muhammad Akmal, A.A.‑G. for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing the case at some length wants to withdraw this petition on behalf of Muhammad Arshad petitioner No. 1, so this petition to the extent of Muhammad Arshad is dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as far as Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Ilyas and Allah Wasaya petitioners are concerned, no effective role is attributed to them, that no injury either to the deceased or the injured P.W. is attributed to them and they are behind the bars since 4‑11‑2001.
3. On the other hand, learned A.A.‑G. submits that as far as, Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Ilyas and Allah Wasaya petitioners are concerned, he has no objection for the grant of bail to their extent.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, according to the F.I. R. it was Muhammad Arshad petitioner No.1, who had caused fatal injury on the person of the deceased and also caused injury on the person of the complainant. As far as, Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Ilyas and Allah Wasaya petitioners are concerned, according to the F.I.R., no overt act whatsoever is attributed to them. Even learned A.A‑G after going through the police tile concedes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, so this bail petition to the extent of Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Ilyas and Allah Wasaya petitioners is accepted. They are allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with two sureties each in the like‑amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. S.M.A./M‑1404/L Bail allowed.