2000 P Cr (PLP)
SAQIB ALI and another‑‑‑petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | SAQIB ALI and another‑‑‑petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (SAQIB ALI and another‑‑‑petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aazar Latif Khan for Petitioners.
- 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that there is only one fire arm injury on the person of the deceased and for one injury seven (7) persons have been involved falsely. Further submits that 7 accused persons of abetment were found innocent by the police and were also granted bail after arrest and even had been discharged. Adds that in three investigations, police came to the conclusion that though the petitioners were present at the spot but they did not cause any injury to the deceased, it was one Khadim Hussain who had caused death of the deceased. Further adds that case F. I. R. No. 132 of 1999 was registered against the complainant party for the murder of Muhammad Aslam and the near relatives of Aslam were making hue and cry for arrest of the accused and when they saw Safdar deceased a close relative of accused in case F. I. R. No. 132, Khadim Hussain fired a shot which hit the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that case against the petitioners is totally false one and with mala fide intention it has been registered by the police at the instance of the complainant party‑. Learned counsel has relied on PLJ 1996 SC 280, 1997 PCr.1J 1074 and 1570.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ . ‑‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/109/148/149‑‑‑Bail before arrest, grant of‑‑‑Allegation against accused was that he, alongwith the co‑accused, pulled down deceased from car and thereafter another co- accused fired a shot which hit on back of deceased ‑‑‑Post‑mortem examination report showed that injury with fire‑arm was present on the back of the deceased‑‑‑Accused had been found guilty,,‑by the police‑‑‑Offence against accused falling within prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C., no ground existed for grant of pre‑arrest bail to accused. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑‑Bail before arrest and bail after arrest, grant of‑‑ Considerations for grant of bail in both the cases are different. Qazi Zafar Iqbal for the State. ORDER This is an application for bail before arrest on behalf of Saqib Ali son of Asghar Ali and Mubashar Ali son of Malik Manzoor accused in case F.I.R. No.133 of 1999 under sections 302/109/148 and 149, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Chung, Lahore on 2‑6‑1999, for the murder of Muhammad Safdar.
2. Allegations against the petitioners are that they while armed with fire‑arms committed the murder of Muhammad Safdar at the behest of seven (7) nominated accused.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. with specific roles; they have been found guilty during the investigation by the police and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard learned counsel for parties. Allegation against Saqib Ali, petitioner No.1; is that he altogwith Khadim pulled down the deceased from the car and thereafter Mubashar petitioner No.2 fired a shot which hit on the back of the deceased. According to the post‑mortem examination report produced by the S.H.O., injury is present on the back of the deceased with fire‑arm.` Consideration for the grant of bail before arrest and bail after arrest are totally different. Petitioners have been found guilty by the police. Offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No' ground for grant of pre‑arrest bail. Dismissed. H. B. T./S‑19/L Application dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application for bail before arrest on behalf of Saqib Ali son of Asghar Ali and Mubashar Ali son of Malik Manzoor accused in case F.I.R. No.133 of 1999 under sections 302/109/148 and 149, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Chung, Lahore on 2‑6‑1999, for the murder of Muhammad Safdar.
2. Allegations against the petitioners are that they while armed with fire‑arms committed the murder of Muhammad Safdar at the behest of seven (7) nominated accused.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that there is only one fire arm injury on the person of the deceased and for one injury seven (7) persons have been involved falsely. Further submits that 7 accused persons of abetment were found innocent by the police and were also granted bail after arrest and even had been discharged. Adds that in three investigations, police came to the conclusion that though the petitioners were present at the spot but they did not cause any injury to the deceased, it was one Khadim Hussain who had caused death of the deceased. Further adds that case F. I. R. No. 132 of 1999 was registered against the complainant party for the murder of Muhammad Aslam and the near relatives of Aslam were making hue and cry for arrest of the accused and when they saw Safdar deceased a close relative of accused in case F. I. R. No. 132, Khadim Hussain fired a shot which hit the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that case against the petitioners is totally false one and with mala fide intention it has been registered by the police at the instance of the complainant party‑. Learned counsel has relied on PLJ 1996 SC 280, 1997 PCr.1J 1074 and 1570.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. with specific roles; they have been found guilty during the investigation by the police and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard learned counsel for parties. Allegation against Saqib Ali, petitioner No.1; is that he altogwith Khadim pulled down the deceased from the car and thereafter Mubashar petitioner No.2 fired a shot which hit on the back of the deceased. According to the post‑mortem examination report produced by the S.H.O., injury is present on the back of the deceased with fire‑arm.` Consideration for the grant of bail before arrest and bail after arrest are totally different. Petitioners have been found guilty by the police. Offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No' ground for grant of pre‑arrest bail. Dismissed. H. B. T./S‑19/L Application dismissed.