1995 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF GULL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF GULL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 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: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF GULL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Masud for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/452/34
Serious allegations had been levelled against accused as he committed a heinous offence during night hours by awakening members of the inmates of the house and tried alongwith others to rob and ravish modesty of a young girl
Accused was armed with a pistol which had been recovered from him which too was sufficient to connect accused with the crime
One of co-accused was proclaimed offender and accused was unable to show any malice on part of police
Trial in case had commenced and charge against accused had been framed by Trial Court
No discretion in favour of accused for granting bail could be exercised in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S.M. Masud for Petitioner. Muhammad Anwar Khokhar for the State. Muhammad Yousaf petitioner being accused in case F.I.R. No.660/94, dated 9-11-1994 registered under section 324/452/34, P.P.C. with Police Station, Civil Lines, Gujrat seeks post-arrest bail through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. 2. According to F.I.R., the complainant was sleeping in his house and at about 1-40 p.m., three armed persons after climbing the wall of his house and thereafter entered in the room, where the sister of the complainant alongwith her brothers, namely, Amjad and Habib Ullah were sleeping. On hearing the noise, the complainant was awakened and went to that room, there he saw three persons, one of them was armed with dagger while the others were armed with pistols. All of the three were busy in talking with his sister and pushing her brothers out of the room. On this the complainant asked to talk to him as they had nothing to do with his sister. Upon this, they got furiated one of them fired which hit on his left arm and other fire caused injury on his right arm. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and police has mala fide against him and wants to involve in a false case. Further, contended that the F.I.R. has been lodged with a delay of about more than 12 hours and that petitioner's case is one of further inquiry. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application. 5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. Serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner as he committed an heinous offence during night hours by awakening the members of the inmates of the house and tried alongwith others to rob and ravish the modesty of a female, young girl. The petitioner was armed with a pistol which has been recovered from him which too is sufficient to connect the petitioner with the crime. One of the co- accused, namely Jabar is proclaimed offender and learned counsel was unable to show any malice on the part of the police. The trial has been commenced and the charge against the petitioner has been framed by the trial Court. I am not minded to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. Resultantly the petition is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M-2152/L Petition dismissed.