1993 PLP 1756 (MLD)
.MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1756 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | .MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1756 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1756 (MLD)?
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: 1993 PLP 1756 (MLD) (.MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shaukat Haroon for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/452/148/149
Bail, grant of-- Accused admittedly was not ascribed any overt act and he had neither participated in the alleged occurrence, nor was present at the spot
Case of accused, therefore, was duly covered by the provisions of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Muhammad Nasim Sabir for the State. Ch. Riasat Ali for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 17th January, 1993 The petitioner is accused of offences under section 302, P.P.C. (Q & D Ordinance) and section 452/148/149, P.P.C., alongwith eight others, vide F.I.R. No.58 of 1992, dated 14-4-1992, registered at Police Station, Kakrali, District Gujrat.
2. According to the F.I.R., in brief, the petitioner is alleged to have participated in the conspiracy that had led to the occurrence in question.
3. The learned counsel contended for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the case is false against the petitioner and that he has been roped in due to enmity. Further submitted that admittedly, the petitioner had neither participated in the occurrence, nor was present at the spot. Further submitted that the petitioner is neither a previous convict nor is a hardened criminal and that he is no longer required by the police.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the present bail petition and submitted that the instant occurrence was a result of the conspiracy hatched by the petitioner alongwith others and that as such he is not entitled to bail. To support his contentions, placed reliance upon Mst. Resham Jan v. Abdur Rehman 1991 SCMR 1849 and Mst. Nasreen v. Fayyaz Khan and another PLD 1991 SC 412.
5. However, as admittedly the petitioner is not accused of any overt act and it is conceded that he had neither participated in the alleged occurrence, A nor was present at the spot, therefore, the case is duly covered by the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In this respect, reliance is placed on Manzoor and 4 others v. The State PLD 1972 SC 81 and Amir v. The State PLD 1972 SC 277, wherein it has been held that neither the law shall be stretched in favour of the prosecution nor the bail shall be denied as a punishment. Further, reliance is placed on Ismail and 7 others v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 2182, wherein it has been held that the basic rule was `bail' and not `jail', subject to exceptions under the law.
6. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above, the petitioner is hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Gujrat. N.H.Q./M-1017/L Bail granted.