1995 P Cr (PLP)
Maulvi ASHIQ HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Muhammad Zubair and Miss Tallat Yaqub, JJ |
| Parties | Maulvi ASHIQ HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 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 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Muhammad Zubair and Miss Tallat Yaqub, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (Maulvi ASHIQ HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaukat Rafique Bajwa for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 27th September, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/324/148/149‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused no doubt were found innocent during investigation, but Courts were not bound to believe and rely upon the ipse dixit of the police‑‑‑Occurrence having taken place at day time in the presence of four injured prosecution witnesses, conclusion arrived at by Sessions Court about case of accused being not one of further inquiry was not open to any legal objection‑‑‑Bail was declined to accused accordingly. Arif Ali Hazoor for the State. M. Yaqoob Pannu for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
SH. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR, J.‑‑‑--The petitioners who are involved in a case under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.251, dated 22‑12‑1993, registered at Police Station Lala Musa, seek to be admitted to bail.
2. As per F.I.R. the petitioners alongwith their co‑accused, armed with fire‑arm attacked the complainant party, as a result whereof, five persons received injuries, and out of them Muhammad Riaz lost his life.
3. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the petitioners were found innocent during the investigation hence their case falls within the ambit of further inquiry and they are entitled to the grant of bail. He further contended that three independent eye‑witnesses belonging to Petrol Pump have sworn in affidavits to the effect that the petitioners were not present at the scene and the learned Judge has wrongly disbelieved their evidence, especially when the police placing reliance on their evidence put the names of the petitioners in Column No.2 of the challan.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer has opposed this bail application, but conceded this fact that during the investigation the petitioners were found innocent. He, however, submitted that there are five witnesses who have categorically named the petitioners as the participants of the occurrence. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the plea of alibi raised by the petitioners is an afterthought and four injured P.Ws., whose presence cannot be doubted have supported the case. The petitioners are vicariously liable for the act of the principal accused, who is still a proclaimed offender the case has been fixed for evidence hence the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of bail.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. It is true that the petitioners were found innocent during the investigation, but there is chain of authorities on the point that the Courts are not bound to believe and rely on the ipse dixit of the police. In the presence of four injured P.Ws. in an occurrence which took place at day time, the learned Judge rightly came to the conclusion that it is not a case of further inquiry, hence his order is not open to any legal objection. There is no substance in this bail petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑709/L Bail refused.