2017 PLP 242 (YLRN)
ISRAR RAZZAK — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 242 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Sami Khan, J |
| Parties | ISRAR RAZZAK — 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 2017 PLP 242 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 242 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore 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: 2017 PLP 242 (YLRN) (ISRAR RAZZAK — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Hassan Medhi Rizvi for Petitioner with Petitioner in person.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A(i)(iii), 337-L(2), 337-F(i), 148 & 149
Shajjah-i-Khafifah, Hashimah, Hurt, Damiyah, rioting, common object
Accused, though was named in FIR, but there was a delay of four days in lodging of the FIR which had not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie had shown that the FIR had been lodged after due deliberation and consultation
Main injury under S.337-A(iii), P.P.C., was attributed to co-accused, while other offences were bailable
Vicarious liability and sharing common intention of accused with his co-accused would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence
Accused had been involved in the case along with his three real brothers and father; possibility could not be ruled out that accused persons had been roped by the complainant with mala fide intention after widening the net
Accused being previous non-convict, S.337-N(2), P.P.C., would come to his rescue
Accused could not be sentenced to imprisonment, rather he could only be directed to pay Arsh or Daman; as neither he was hardened, dangerous, desperate criminal, nor he had committed the alleged offence on the pretext of honour
Accused had joined the investigation of the case
No useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars so as to enable him to come out of jail on post arrest bail after few days
Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances. [Paras. 2 & 3 of the judgment] Irfan Zia Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State and Arshad Ali, S.I. with record.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail before arrest in case FIR No. 452/15, dated 14.10.2015 registered at Police Station Nishat Abad, Faisalabad for the offences under Sections 337A(iii), 337A(i), 337L(2), 337F(i), 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and learned Deputy Prosecutor General and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. It has been noticed that although the petitioner is named in FIR, yet the fact remains that there is a delay of four days in lodging of the FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation. It has been noticed by this Court that the main injury under section 337A(iii), P.P.C. is attributed to co-accused Abdur Razzaq while the other offences are bailable in nature. It is settled law that vicarious liability and sharing common intention of the petitioner with his co-accused shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. Petitioner has been involved in this case along with his three real brothers and father, so possibility cannot be ruled out of consideration that he has been roped by the complainant with mala fide intention after widening the net which is common practice in our society. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict, hence section 337N(2), P.P.C. also comes to the rescue of petitioner and under the law the petitioner cannot be sentenced to imprisonment rather he can only directed to pay Arsh or Daman in this case as neither he is hardened, dangerous, desperate criminal nor he has committed the alleged offence on the pretext of honour. He has joined the investigation of the case; therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars so as to enable him to come out of jail on post arrest bail after few days.
3. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide this Court's order dated 15.12.2015 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/ Area Magistrate.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. HBT/I-6/L Bail confirmed.