2007 PLP 3084 (YLR)
ZAHID HAFEEZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 3084 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Khalil Alvi, J |
| Parties | ZAHID HAFEEZ — 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 3084 (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 3084 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Khalil Alvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 3084 (YLR) (ZAHID HAFEEZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(v)/337-F(i)/337-F(ii)/148/149
Bail, grant of --Case was one of two versions
Complainant's side had already been summoned by Magistrate after having considered the prima facie evidence led by the accused 's side
Offences with which the accused was charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr. P. C.
Accused was behind the bars for the last more than three months
Investigation being complete accused was not required by the police
Injuries sustained by the accused persons had not been disclosed in the F.I.R. --F. I. R. suffered from an unexplained delay of three days
Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. 2005 SCMR 1402 ref. Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for the Petitioner. Rao Atif Nawaz for the State. Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Ch. for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F. I. R. No. 273 of 2005 dated 2-7-2005 under sections 337-F(5), 337F(1), 337-F(2)/148/149 P.P.C. registered at Police Station Yousaf Wala District Sahiwal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that .petitioner along with four others variously armed attacked the complainant side and caused injuries with their respective weapons.
3. It is contended that there is a delay of three days in the registration of the case; that it is a case of two versions and the injuries' on the person of the accused persons have been suppressed; that in a complaint filed by Mst. Musarrat mother of the petitioner complainant party have been summoned by the learned Magistrate vide order, dated 8-10-2005; that the offences against the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory Clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 21-1-2005; that he is no more required by the police for any further investigation. It is also argued that Muhammad Saleem and Shahid co-accused have already been released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant contends that weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner; that two direct injuries are attributed to the petitioner; that petitioner's cross-version was recorded by the police but was not believed and was repelled during investigation; that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with a specific role; that although the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause but in view of 2005 SCMR 1402 in the case which does not fall within the prohibitory clause, bail should not be granted as a matter of rule.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The case is one of two versions. Complainant's side has already been summoned by the learned Magistrate after having considered the prima facie evidence led by the petitioner's side. The offences with which the petitioner is charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is behind the bars since 21-7-2005. Investigation of the case is almost complete. Person of the petitioner is no more required by the police. Injuries sustained by the accused persons have not been disclosed in the F.I.R. There is a delay of 3 days in the registration of the case without there being any explanation. For all these reasons I am inclined to allow this application. Resultantly, petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. N.H.Q./Z-141/L Bail allowed.