2002 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2002 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 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: 2002 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Fazal Rauf Joya for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 337-H(ii) & 148/149-- Bail, grant of
Accused who was allegedly armed with a Sota, did not cause any injury to the prosecution witness or to any other person and the only injury on the person .of said prosecution witness was caused by fire arm--Accused, in one of the investigations was found to be innocent and in second investigation the Investigating Officer had concluded that the accused was present at the place of occurrence, .but no overt act had been attributed to him
No recovery had been effected, from the accused-- Case against the accused needed further probe and inquiry
Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Fazal Rauf Joya for Petitioner. Tariq Murtaza for the State. Muhammad Ramzan son of Muhammad Din, petitioner, has sought his post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.68, of 2001, registered under sections 324, 337-H(ii) and 148/149, P.P.C. on 15-3-2001 at Police Station Chak Baidhi, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Precisely, the allegation leveled in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner alongwith five others took hold Muhammad Ashraf brother of the complainant and one of the accused Soba son of Jamal, who was armed with .7 mm rifle fired at Muhammad Ashraf, which hit him on his left shin.
3. Investigation of the case has been completed and the challan has been sent to the Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It has been noticed that the petitioner who was allegedly armed with a Sota did not cause any injury on the person of Muhammad Ashraf P.W. or to any other P.W. There is only one injury on the person of Muhammad Ashraf and that was found to be a fire-arm injury. In one of the investigation, the petitioner was found to be innocent. In the second investigation, the Investigating Officer has concluded that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but no overt act has been attributed to him. No recovery has been effected from him.
5. The crux of the above discussion is that the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, I am inclined to allow this petition and grant bail to the petitioner subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs. one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge. H.B.T./M-809/L Bail granted.