2007 PLP 1951 (YLR)
SHAFAAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1951 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Muzammal Khan, J |
| Parties | SHAFAAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1951 (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 2007 PLP 1951 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Muzammal Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1951 (YLR) (SHAFAAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yasin for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337A(ii) & 337-F(i)/34
Bail though was opposed with the arguments that 'accused had been named in the F.I.R.. with attribution of specific role, but Investigating Officer had reported that accused was present at the place of occurrence, empty handed
Medico-legal Report showed that only injury attributed to accused was with fist blow on the left shoulder of complainant which invited offence under S.337-F(i), P.P.C. punishable with one year of sentence
Accused, besides being an old man, had already joined police investigation and according to Investigating Officer, his person was no more needed as nothing was to be recovered from him
Accused had no criminal history to his credit and he hailed from an ordinary agricultural family of the area
Offence charged was not covered by prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and in absence of any allegation of his abscondance or tampering with prosecution evidence, bail was not to be withheld as of punishment
Aggression by accused was yet to be determined at the time of trial, which had made case of accused that of further inquiry
Ad interim bail, granted to accused was confirmed; in' circumstances. Ms. Shamsa Kanwal, along with Hamed Ali, S.-I. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.
Petitioner was refused bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in case vide F.I.R. No.225, dated 3-5-2006, under sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i)/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Saddar Pattoki. The petitioner, thereafter, moved instant petition for the same relief and he was conferred ad interim pre-arrest bail on, 26-6-2006, which has now been placed for confirmation.
2. Gravamen of the charge, as it appears from the F.I.R., is that on 30-4-2006 at 1-00 p.m. petitioner along with his son Shahzad while armed with a "Sota" assaulted and inflicted "Sota" blow on the backside of the head of the complainant. Petitioner also gave a fist blow on left shoulder of the complainant where after both the assailants inflicted injuries on his different parts of the body. 2A. I have heard the learned 'counsel for the parties and have examined the police record. Though bail was opposed with the arguments that the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. with attribution of specific role yet the Investigating Officer reported that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but was empty handed. As per Medico-legal Report, the only injury attributed to the petitioner is with fist blow on the left shoulder of the complainant which invites offence under section 337-F(i), P.P.C., punishable with one year of sentence. The petitioner besides being old man, has already joined the police investigation and according to the Investigating Officer, his person is no more needed, as nothing is to be recovered from him. The petitioner has no criminal history to his credit and he hails from an ordinary agriculturist family of the area, offence charged is not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in absence of any allegation of his abscondance or tampering with the prosecution evidence, bail is not to be withheld as of punishment. Aggression by the petitioner is yet to be determined at the time of trial, which makes his case that of further inquiry. The petitioner will face the sentence if ultimately convicted by the trial Court.
3. For the reasons noted above, petitioner has made out a case for confirmation of his bail already granted to him by this Court. This petition is accordingly accepted and petitioner's ad interim bail granted on 26-6-2006 is confirmed, pending trial of case against him. H.B.T./S-60/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Bail confirmed.