2016 PLP 1694 (MLD)
QAYYUM and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1694 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | QAYYUM and another — Petitioners 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 1694 (MLD)?
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 1694 (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: 2016 PLP 1694 (MLD) (QAYYUM and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Azam Warraich for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(ii), 337-F(iii), 337-L(2), 148 & 149
Causing Shajjah-i-Mudihah, Mutalahimah, other hurt, rioting common object
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Case being of bail before arrest, deeper appreciation of evidence, was not allowed; only tentative assessment was required
Delay of twelve days in registration of FIR had not been explained, which, prima facie, had shown that the FIR had been got recorded after due deliberation and consultation
No specific role in the commission of alleged occurrence had been assigned to accused persons and only general allegation of giving beating to the complainant and his companion, was levelled against accused
Civil litigation, was pending between the parties; that could be the reason for false implication of accused persons in the present case
Person of accused could not be handed over to Police only for the purpose of effecting recovery, which otherwise had lost relevancy with the passage of time
Recovery of weapons of offence i.e. 'Danday Sotay' was a little help to the prosecution
Accused were previous non-convicts; and were never involved in any other case of like nature; they were neither hardened, dangerous, desperate criminals, nor they had committed the alleged offence on the pretext of honour
Investigation was complete to the extent of accused persons
No useful purpose would be served by sending them behind the bars
False implication of accused persons by the complainant with ulterior motive and mala fide intention, could not be ruled out of consideration
Ad interim pre-arrest bail, already granted to accused persons, was confirmed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C. Qayyum and Faisal petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.260/15, dated 20.07.2015 registered at Police Station Zafarwal, District Narowal in respect of offences under Sections 337A(ii), 337F(i), 337F(iii), 337L(2), 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail before arrest, deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. It has been noticed that there is a delay of twelve days in registration of FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got recorded after due deliberation and consultation. Moreso, no specific role in the commission of alleged occurrence has been assigned to the present petitioners and only general allegation of giving beating to the complainant and his companions is leveled against the petitioners and their ten other co-accused. Civil litigation is pending between the parties and that can be the reason for false implication of the petitioners by the complainant in the instant case by spreading the net wide. The person of the petitioner cannot be handed over to police only for the purpose of effecting recovery, which otherwise has lost relevancy with the passage of time as occurrence in this case took place on 08.07.2015. In such situation, recovery of weapons of offence i.e. "danday, sotay" is of little help to the prosecution. In this regard, reliance can be placed on 2014 SCMR 1349. Admittedly the petitioners are previous non-convict and never involved in any other case of such like nature, therefore, section 337N(2), P.P.C. comes to their rescue as they are not previous convicts, neither they are hardened, dangerous, desperate criminals nor they have committed the alleged offence on the pretext of honour. They have already joined the investigation, which is complete to their extent, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending them behind the bars so as to enable them to come out of jail on post arrest bail after few days.
3. For what has been discussed above, false implication of the petitioners by the complainant with ulterior motive and mala fide intention cannot be ruled out of consideration, therefore, the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is confirmed subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. HBT/Q-10/L Bail granted.