YLR 2005

2005 PLP 803 (YLR)

QADEER MOHY D‑DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Cr. Misc. No. 1167‑B of 2003/BWP, decided on 18‑2‑2004.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud and Sh. Hakim Ali, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2005 PLP 803 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud and Sh. Hakim Ali, JJ
Parties QADEER MOHY D‑DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 803 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 803 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud and Sh. Hakim Ali, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 803 (YLR) (QADEER MOHY D‑DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Ch. Abdul Ghaffar Bhutao for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑Ss.302/311/331/392/34‑‑‑Anti‑Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7‑‑‑Compromise‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Before execution of sentence finally awarded to accused, compromise was arrived at between accused acid legal heirs of deceased‑‑‑Trial Court, after accepting said compromise, acquitted accused from offence under S. 302, P. P. C., but convicted him under S. 311, P. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rive years' R.I. with payment of Diyat amount‑‑‑Conviction and sentence passed against accused under S. 392, P. P. C. was maintained‑‑‑Accused had sought his release on bail in accordance with S. 331, P. P. C. on ground that he had served out his sentence and was suffering in jail because of non‑payment of Diyat‑‑‑Subsection (2) of S.331, P. P. C. enabled High Court to release accused on bail for the purpose of payment of Diyat amount‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail with direction to pay amount of Diyat in lump sum or in instalments within specified period failing which he would be taken into custody and would be kept in jail till payment of Diyat amount. Mirza Muhammad Nadeem Asif for the State.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑‑‑Ss.302/311/331/392/34‑‑‑Anti‑Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7‑‑‑Compromise‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Before execution of sentence finally awarded to accused, compromise was arrived at between accused acid legal heirs of deceased‑‑‑Trial Court, after accepting said compromise, acquitted accused from offence under S. 302, P. P. C., but convicted him under S. 311, P. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rive years' R.I. with payment of Diyat amount‑‑‑Conviction and sentence passed against accused under S. 392, P. P. C. was maintained‑‑‑Accused had sought his release on bail in accordance with S. 331, P. P. C. on ground that he had served out his sentence and was suffering in jail because of non‑payment of Diyat‑‑‑Subsection (2) of S.331, P. P. C. enabled High Court to release accused on bail for the purpose of payment of Diyat amount‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail with direction to pay amount of Diyat in lump sum or in instalments within specified period failing which he would be taken into custody and would be kept in jail till payment of Diyat amount. Ch. Abdul Ghaffar Bhutao for Petitioner. Mirza Muhammad Nadeem Asif for the State. MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.‑‑‑Vide judgment, dated 25‑3‑1999. Qadeer Mohy‑ud‑Din (petitioner) was convicted by the learned Judge, Anti‑Terrorism Court‑II, Bahawalpur, for offence under section 302/34, P.P.C., read with section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, and sentenced to death. The petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default thereof he was to suffer R.I. for two years. The petitioner was also‑ convicted for offence under section 392/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for five years. Fine of Rs.10,000 was imposed upon the petitioner as compensation, in default thereof he was to undergo further R.I. for six months. Vide judgment, dated 7‑5‑1999 the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the death sentence was confirmed. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Jail Appeal No. 90 of 1999 SCJ, which was also dismissed vide judgment, dated 4‑2‑2002. Before execution of sentence, the legal heir of deceased Abdul Salam entered into compromise with the petitioner. The learned Trial Court after accepting the compromise effected between the parties acquitted the petitioner from the offence under section 302, P.P.C. but convicted him for offence under section 311, P. P.C. and sentenced him to undergo five years R.I. The petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.1,78,235 as Diyat to be distributed between the minor children of the deceased.' The conviction and the sentence passed for offence under section 392, P.P.C. was maintained. However, the learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 9‑10‑2000 directed that the sentences awarded to the petitioner would run concurrently and the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. would be extended to him.

2. Through this petition, the petitioner has sought his release on bail in accordance with the section 331, P.P.C. on the ground that the petitioner has served out his sentence and was suffering in Jail because of non‑payment of Diyat.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. According to the report, dated 4‑12‑2003 submitted by the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur, the petitioner had served out his sentence since 21‑9‑2002 and was longing in Jail for non‑payment of Diyat amounting to Rs.1,78.235. Subsection (2) of section 331, P.P.C. enable this Court to release the petitioner on bail for the purpose of payment of Diyat.

4. Thus we admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,78,235, with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The petitioner, may pay the amount of Diyat in lump sum or in instalments within a period of three years. In case the petitioner does not pave the amount of Diyat by 17‑3‑2007, he would be re‑taken into custody and would be kept in Jail till the payment of Diyat amount i.e. Rs.1,78,

235. H.B.T./Q‑12/L Bail granted.