2006 PLP 2988 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD YOUNIS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2988 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUNIS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2988 (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 2006 PLP 2988 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2988 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD YOUNIS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 337-A(ii), 148 & 149
Accused was named in F.I.R.
Accused along with co-accused came on the spot after making preparation and arming themselves which had shown that both shared common intention with regard to the murder of deceased
Trial had commenced and statements of three witnesses had been recorded
Bail application, was dismissed, in circumstances. Ch. Shahzad Aslam for Complainant. Miss Zahida Batool for the State with Riaz Ahmad, S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.
The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.118 dated 8-8-2005 registered under sections 302, 337-A(ii), 148 and 149, P.P.C. at Police Station, Fateh Shah, District Vehari.
2. According to the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that he while armed with Sota came at the place of occurrence along with his co-accused wherein Farooq Ahmad was severely injured and who later on succumbed to the injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was armed with Sota but did not cause any injury to the deceased nor to any P.W. and that the investigation is complete but the petitioner is no more required by the police for the purposes of investigation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that trial has commenced and evidence of three witnesses has been recorded.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. The petitioner along with co-accused came on the spot after making preparation and arming themselves which shows that he shared the common intention with regard to the murder of the deceased. Trial has commenced and statements of three witnesses have been recorded.
7. In view of the above circumstances, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. H.B.T./M-423/L Bail refused.