2017 PLP 222 (MLD)
RIAZ AKHTAR and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 222 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RIAZ AKHTAR and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 222 (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 2017 PLP 222 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 222 (MLD) (RIAZ AKHTAR and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Ghaneem Aabir Khan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 148 & 149
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, common object
No allegation of encircling the deceased by co-accused
No injury was attributed to accused persons on the person of the deceased and injured; same had been attributed to co-accused
Question of sharing common intention by accused persons with their co-accused as well as their vicarious liability in the commission of alleged occurrence would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence
Accused persons, were previous non-convict and were behind the bars since 13-10-2015, without any fruitful progress in the trial
Investigation of the case was complete, and accused persons, were no more required for further investigation
Mere heinousness of offence, was no ground to refuse the concession of bail to accused, who otherwise became entitled for that on merits
No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused persons behind the bars
Case of accused persons, had become one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Riaz Akhtar and Muhammad Hanif petitioners have sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.384/2015 dated 29.09.2015 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C., Police Station Saddar Wah, District Rawalpindi.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. The allegation against the petitioners as per FIR is that they along with their co-accused were following the deceased. Later on Riaz Akhtar petitioner along with Iftikhar alias Kharu and Qamar Zaman co-accused encircled the deceased, but there is no allegation of encircling the deceased against Muhammad Hanif petitioner. It has been noticed that no injury whatsoever is attributed to the petitioners on the persons of Tahir Mehmood deceased and Allama Zaheer alias Sadheer injured as the same has been attributed to George co-accused, therefore, the questions of sharing common intention by the petitioners with their co-accused as well as their vicarious liability in the commission of alleged occurrence shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. In this regard, reliance can be placed on 1996 SCMR 1125. Admittedly, the petitioners are previous non-convict. They are behind the bars since 13.10.2015 without any fruitful progress in their trial. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioners are no more required for further investigation. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse the concession of bail to the accused, who otherwise become entitled for that on the merits of case. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioners becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. HBT/R-9/L Bail granted.