2010 PLP 994 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AJMAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 994 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AJMAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 994 (MLD)?
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 994 (MLD)?
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: 2010 PLP 994 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AJMAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Aslam Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.452, 337-F(ii), 147 & 149
House trespassing and damiyah
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of--In the present case a civil suit was filed by the complainant in which status quo order was recalled
During the Police investigation only bricks were used by both the parties
Co-accused with similar role had been granted bail
Section 452, P.P.C. had been deleted during the investigation
Accused having made out a case for confirmation of bail, same was confirmed, accordingly, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.419 of 2009, dated 22-6-2009, registered under sections 452, 337-F(i), 147, 149, P.P.C., at the Police Station Saddar Sialkot with the allegation that the petitioner made a "Kassi" blow on the complainant's wife of Mst. Bushra Bibi.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case with the mala fide intention and ulterior motive of the complainant and the local police. It is further contended that present case a civil suit was filed by the complainant in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Atif Saeed learned Civil Judge, Sialkot, and the status quo order was recalled on 15-6-20009. It is further contended that during the police investigation only bricks were used by both the parties. It is added that his co-accused has been granted bail with similar role by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 30-6-2009. Further offence 452, P.P.C. has been deleted during the investigation and according to the Medical Board the injury 337-F was found to be one under section 337-L(ii) which is bailable offence.
3. The learned DPG has vehemently opposed the bail petitioner of the petitioner on the ground the case of his co-accused namely Muhammad Akram who has granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is distinguishable therefore he is not entitled to the bail.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. In the present case a civil suit was filed by the complainant in which status quo order was recalled on 15-6-2009. During the police investigation only bricks were used by both the parties. Co-accused of the petitioner has also been granted bail with similar role by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Section 452, P.P.C. has been deleted during the investigation. In these circumstances the petitioner has made At a case for confirmation of bail granted to him on 12-10-2009 which is confirmed subject to his fresh surety bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-223/L Bail confirmed.