2016 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KAMRAN — 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 2016 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 2016 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD KAMRAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Seerat Hussain Naqvi and Malik Muhammad Ameer Joiya for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-J, 377, 500 & 501
Causing hurt by means of a poison, unnatural offence and defamation
Most of the offences which accused was charged were bailable and offence under S. 377, P.P.C. was added subsequent to registration of FIR and there was no tangible evidence to the same
Prosecution was waiting for report of DNA to connect accused with offence
Addition of S. 337-J, P.P.C. was perplexing and obfuscating and there was no allegation in FIR that accused administered poison to deceased nor had any evidence been collected by prosecution to lend corroboration to the charge brought against accused and the section was added as good measure
Effect
Accused had been behind the bars since 27-5-2014 and charge was framed but no witness was examined by prosecution
Commencement of trial was no ground to deny bail to accused particularly when there were sufficient grounds calling for further inquiry into the guilt of accused within the purview of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
Bail was allowed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.
Muhammad Kamran, the petitioner seeks post- arrest bail in case FIR No.253 dated 01.5.2014 registered under sections 337-J, 377, 500 and 501, P.P.C. at Police Station Dijkot, District Faisalabad.
2. As per the FIR, on 20.4.2014 at 3.45 p.m., Muhammad Asim Nadeem, son of the complainant headed towards open fields on his motorcycle. When he arrived at square Nos.64 and 65 of Chak No.257 R.B., Jahangir Khurd, District Faisalabad, he shot himself and thus committed suicide. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that the deceased was so much teased by him that he preferred death to life.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Prior to lodging the FIR on 01.5.2014 about the occurrence in question, Rupt No.12 dated 20.4.2014 was entered at the very same Police Station, with almost the same details. This Rupt was lodged by Muhammad Azam, father of the deceased. At the time, he had not held anybody liable for the suicide of Muhammad Asim Nadeem. However, he implicated the petitioner and his co-accused, Awais on 15.2014 through FIR No.253.
5. From the narration of the foregoing facts, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has been involved in the case just on suspicion. Most of the offences with which the petitioner stand charged are bailable ones. As for the offence of section 377, P.P.C., which was added subsequent to the registration of the case, there is no tangible evidence. Allegedly, the prosecution is awaiting the report of DNA to connect the petitioner with this offence. Likewise, the addition of section 337-J, P.P.C. is perplexing and obfuscating, to say the least. There is no allegation in the FIR that the petitioner administered poison to the deceased nor has any evidence been collected by the prosecution to lend corroboration to this charge brought against the petitioner. It seems that this section was added as a good measure.
5. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 27.5.2014. The charge has been framed, but no witness has been examined by the prosecution so far. Even otherwise, the commencement of trial is no ground at all to deny bail to an accused, particularly when there are sufficient grounds calling for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
6. For what has been stated above, the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to the furnishing of bail/surety bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. MH/M-343/L Bail allowed.