2004 PLP 93 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 93 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, C J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 93 (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 2004 PLP 93 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, C J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 93 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar M. Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 23rd June, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Case against accused was registered promptly within half an hour in which complainant had alleged that accused had fired with M‑16 Rifle at deceased who died at the spot‑‑‑Motive for occurrence was stated to be previous enmity between deceased and accused‑‑‑Accused though allegedly was injured in incident, but plea of accused that he had fired back in self‑defence, would be examined by Trial Court after evidence would be led by parties and at bail stage it was difficult and also inappropriate to give any opinion qua the plea of self‑defence raised by accused. Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari for the Complainant. Noor Muhammad Qaisar Kalyar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Noor Muhammad Qaisar Kalyar for the State. Date of hearing: 23rd June, 2003. Petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.418,dated 22‑11‑2001 under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Bhalwal, District Sargodha.
2. This is a third application of the petitioner on the subject. Earlier two applications were dealt with by another learned Bench, which declined to hear the present petition for personal reasons. Thereafter, the matter was placed before me. Notice of the petition was issued to State as well as complainant. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner himself was injured in the incident and in successive investigations, it was found that petitioner was not the person, who had opened the attack, in the first instance but he had fired shot in self‑defence and, as such, he deserved concession of bail as trial of criminal case against the petitioner had not commenced and he stood lodged in prison for the past 18 months. Learned counsel for the complainant and State, on the other hand, submitted that petitioner had shot to death two persons and in three investigations, he was found guilty and, as a matter of fact, he was injured subsequent to the shooting at the deceased, and, as such, he did not deserve the concession of bail.
4. The case was registered at Police Station Bhalwal regarding the incident, which took place in Sub‑Divisional Courts, Bhalwal at about 12‑10 p.m. The case was registered within half an hour at the instance of Muhammad Yar, who reported I that Muhammad Aslam fired with M‑16 rifle at Ghulam Murtaza, Muhammad Ali was overpowered by Bashir Ahmed and others and Muhammad Aslam also fired at him. Muhammad Ali also died. Motive for the incident was stated to be previous enmity between Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Aslam. Both the parties had to appear in the Court on the date or occurrence. Muhammad Aslam, no doubt. was injured in the incident but that fact duly finds mentioned in the F.I.R. itself. The case of the petitioner that he had fired back in self‑defence, would be examined by the Trial Court after evidence is led by the parties. At this stage, it is difficult and also inappropriate to give any opinion qua the plea of self‑defence, being raised by the petitioner.
5. The petition is dismissed, Bail application dismissed H.B.T./M‑2235/L