2018 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD WASEEM — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD WASEEM — 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 2018 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD WASEEM — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mujahid Waseem Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 335, 148 & 149
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to qatl-i-amd, vicarious liability, common intention
Nomination of accused through supplementary statement
General allegations levelled by prosecution
Effect
Scope
No specific role had been ascribed to the accused and general allegations that he and the co-accused had committed murder of the deceased were levelled
Record revealed that specific role of causing firearm injury to the deceased had been attributed to co-accused persons while the role of causing injury to the injured and complainant had been attributed to other co-accused
Vicarious liability or sharing common intention by him with co-accused persons for committing murder of the deceased would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence, therefore, case of the accused called for further inquiry as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. [Paras. 2 & 3 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Muhammad Waseem has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.133/2017 dated 17.05.2017 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 335, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Rang Shah District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner is not named in the FIR rather he was nominated through supplementary statement recoded on the same day wherein no specific role has been ascribed to the petitioner and general allegations have been levelled against the petitioner that he along with his co-accused has committed the murder of deceased. It is pertinent to mention here that specific role of causing fire arm injury to the deceased has been attributed to co-accused Fakhar and Murid Hussain whereas role of causing injury to injured Abdur Rehman and complainant has been attributed to co-accused Pervaiz Akhtar and Didar Ahmad. As far as the question of vicarious liability of the petitioner or sharing common intention by him with his co-accused for committing murder of the deceased is concerned, the same shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. In this respect, reliance can be placed on Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State 1996 SCMR 1125. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since 17.05.2017. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. Nobody could be kept in jail for an indefinite period. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who other becomes entitled for this Concession.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. MQ/M-45/L Bail granted.