2003 PLP 2352 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD USMAN alias THINGO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 2352 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD USMAN alias THINGO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2352 (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 2003 PLP 2352 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 2352 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD USMAN alias THINGO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Arshad Latif for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/148/149
Injury attributed to accused was on the non-vital part of the body of the injured prosecution witness
Accused had not repeated the fire and the question whether he had intended to kill the victim required serious consideration
Nothing incriminating had been recovered from the accused
Case of accused required further probe into his guilt as contemplated under subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr. P. C.
Accused having been found entitled to bail, could not be refused the same merely on the ground that he had remained absconder-- Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. Muhammad Afsar v. The State 1994 SCMR 2051 rel. Malik Abdul. Ghaffar Sial for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Usman alias Thingo, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.83 dated 12-7-2001 under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Bangla Ichha, Tehsil Rojhan, District Rajanpur.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 12-7-2001 at about Asr prayer time he and his co-accused while having lethal weapon had attempted the Qatl i-Amd of Abdul Shakoor. He had fired on him with Kalashnikov hitting on the shin of right leg.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is grudge over the incident of injuring Muhammad Rafiq Lathani by Abdul Ghani and Abdul Shakoor.
4. The bail has been sought on the ground that he has falsely been roped in that injury ascribed to him is on the non-vital part of body of Abdul Shakoor; that there was no repetition of injury on his part; that there is also conflict in the ocular account and the medical evidence inasmuch as that only one injury was found on the body of injured while two shots allegedly were fired at him and one of these by him and the second by his co accused Bakhsho and the same makes his case as one of further inquiry into his guilt; that he had no knowledge of the case against him and he has not at all absconded; that no incriminating article was recovered from him; and that he is behind the bars for the last about 4-1/2 months and a previous non convict. In support of bail he has relied upon the case of Muhammad Afsar v. The State 1994 SCMR 2051.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he has fired with Kalashnikov hitting injured Abdul Shakoor on his shin of the right leg; and that he has remained absconder for quite some time speaking of his guilty intent in the matter.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
7. The fact remains that injury ascribed to him is on the non-vital part of body of injured Abdul Shakoor. There was no repetition of fire by him. So the question that if he had intended to kill him would certainly require serious consideration.
8. Admittedly no incriminating article was recovered from him. So, his case is amply covered under subsection (2) of section 4.97, Cr.P.C, requiring further inquiry into his guilt. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the case of Muhammad Afsar v. The State 1994 SCMR 2051.
9. He allegedly had remained absconder for some time. It is to be mentioned here that I case of an accused when is found fit for bail, he cannot be refused bail merely on the ground that he has remained absconder. It is the contention from his side that he had no knowledge of the case against him.
10. Anyway, in view of the above, I find him entitled to bail.
11. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Ilaqa/Deputy Magistrate. N.H.Q./M-1721/L Bail allowed.