2007 PLP 3086 (YLR)
NABASSAL AHRMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 3086 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | NABASSAL AHRMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 3086 (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 2007 PLP 3086 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 3086 (YLR) (NABASSAL AHRMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aftab Ahmad Bajwa for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Out of four accused persons named in F.I.R., two were declared innocent during investigation and against them complainant made a supplementary statement allegedly on the same day and implicated accused and one other in their place attributing specific roles to them
One injury each had been attributed to accused on the person of deceased
Accused was not named in F.I.R.
Medico legal report revealed that there was only one injury on the person of deceased
Contradiction existed in ocular account and medical evidence
Accused having made out case of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr. P. C., he was entitled to concession of bail. Naseeruddin Khan Nayyar, Additional Prosecutor-General for the State with Muhammad Akbar, A.S.-I. With record.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF; J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this bail petition, contends that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in this ,case; that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. but was named in -the supplementary statement made by the complainant on 16-1-.2006; that in the F.I.R. four accused were. named amongst whom two, namely Nasir and Hakeem were found innocent during the course of investigation by the police and in their place petitioner Nabassal and Ahmad Itaza were implicated; that the recovery has been planted on them; that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) to section 497 Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of ball by this Court.'
2. On the other hand, Mr. Naseeruddin Khan Nayyar, the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, while appearing on behalf of the State, submits that the petitioner and his co-accused were made accused although through a supplementary statements but on the same day and with specific roles and that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail from this Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record.
4. Four accused persons, namely, Hakim, Nasir, Dilawar Shah and Muhammad Zubair were named in the F.I.R., Nasir and Hakim were declared innocent during investigation and against them the complainant made a supplementary statement allegedly on the same day and implicated the petitioner and one Ahmad Raza in their place attributing specific roles. One injury each has been attributed to the accused on the person of the deceased. The petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. According to the MLR there is only one injury on the person of the deceased, so, there is a contradiction in ocular account and the medical evidence. In the afore-referred circumstances and without going into -the merits of the case lest it may prejudice case of either side, this Court is of the, prima facie, view that the petitioner has made out a case falling under subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. and is entitled to the concession of bail. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. H.B.T./N-59/L Bail granted.