2010 PLP 751 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 751 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Saif-ur-Rehman, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 751 (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 2010 PLP 751 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Saif-ur-Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 751 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
- Ishfaq Ahmad Malik, D.P.G. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(v)/337-A(i)/337-L(2)/148/149
Hashimah and shajjah-i-khafifah
Accused along with his co-accused had caused injuries in the same occurrence
Nothing was on record that the injuries recorded in medico-legal certificate were fake
Would be determined after recording of evidence as to who among the parties initiated the aggression
Case being of further inquiry, accused was admitted to bail. 1996 SCMR 1845, 1983 SCMR 1001 and PLD 1995 SC 34 rel. Jasel Khan Awan, S.-I. with record
Judgment & Decree
SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.
A case was registered vide FIR No.292, dated 5-9-2008 on written application of Muhammad Rafique under sections 337-F(v)/337-A(i)/ 337-L(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Chichawatni. Cross version was set-up in the aforesaid case wherein it was alleged that Muhammad Asim-petitioner while armed with sota along with his co-accused Niaz, Afzal, Abid and Riaz launched is criminal assault. The petitioner seeks bail through the instant petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a case of cross-version. All of his co-accused and the accused of the F.I.R. case were on bail. He was also entitled to bail in view of rule of consistency. Reliance was placed on the authorities reported in 1996 SCMR 1845, 1983 SCMR 1001 and PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34.
3. Opposing the petition, learned Deputy Prosecutor General submitted that injury attributed to the petitioner resulted in fracture of nasal bone. The petitioner and his co-accused were the aggressors. Sufficient material existed on record to make a case against the petitioner the punishment for which fell under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He, therefore, was not entitled to any concession.
4. Admittedly in the same occurrence, the petitioner himself along with Rashid and Shafique were caused injuries. There is nothing on the record that the injuries recorded in their medico legal certificates were fake. It shall be determined after recording of evidence that who amongst the parties initiated the aggression.
5. In view of the above, this is found to be a case of further inquiry. The petitioner, therefore, is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./122/L Bail allowed.