2016 PLP 2727 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 2727 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) |
| Bench Members | Abdul Sami Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — 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 PLP 2727 (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 2016 PLP 2727 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) bench comprising: Abdul Sami Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 2727 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Basharat Ullah Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 337-F(v) & 337-F(ii)
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing Hashimah, Badiah
Accused, though was named in FIR, but injuries allegedly caused by accused to the complainant, were on his legs
Attraction of offence under S.324, P.P.C., against accused, would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence
Section 337-F(ii) & (v), P.P.C., did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was previous non-convict and never involved in any other case
Accused was behind the bars for more than five and half months
Investigation of the case was complete; and accused was no more required for further investigation
No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused behind the bars
Mere commencement of trial, was no ground to refuse bail to accused, who otherwise had become entitled to concession bail
Case of accused having become one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Sh. Instajabat Ali, DPG and Sultan ASI with record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.43/2015 dated 04.07.2015, registered at Police Station New Airport Fateh Jang, District Attock in respect of offences under sections 324, 337F(v), 337F(ii) P.P.C.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is allowed at this stage, therefore, without going deeper into the facts of the case, it has been noticed that although the petitioner is named in FIR yet the fact remains that the injuries allegedly caused by the petitioner to the complainant are on his legs, so the attraction of offence under section 324, P.P.C. against the present petitioner shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. So far as the offences under sections 337-F(ii) and 337F(v), P.P.C. are concerned, the same do not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. He was arrested in this case on 30.08.2015, now more than five and half months have passed but he is still behind the bars. Nobody can be kept in jail for indefinite period. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. Mere commencement of trial is no ground to refusal bail to an accused, who otherwise becomes entitled to this concession.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. Before parting with this order, it is deemed appropriate to clarify that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. HBT/M-58/L Bail granted.