2006 PLP 916 (MLD)
SHAHBAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 916 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAHBAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 916 (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 2006 PLP 916 (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: 2006 PLP 916 (MLD) (SHAHBAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Shaukat Ali Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A(2), 337-F(i) & 34
Name of accused with a role was mentioned in F.I.R.
Accused having been found guilty by two D.S.P's. mala fide could not be attached
Extraordinary concession of bail, could not be granted to accused, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.
The petitioner filed this application for pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No.231 of 2004, dated 21-10-2004, under sections 337-A(2)/337-F(i)/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Laksin, District, Bhalwal.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., complainant was attacked while he was passing through a street in front of his house by petitioner and his co-accused Azhar son of Saeed and Saeed son of Jalal. The petitioner was armed with Sota. Co-accused Saeed and petitioner caught-hold of the complainant and co-accused Azhar gave Sota blows to the complainant on his head. After a while co-accused Mumtaz and Mukhtar also armed with Sotas arrived at the place of occurrence and caused injuries with Sotas.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was registered malafidely. In this context he submits that a civil suit is pending between the petitioner and one Ejaz, S.-I. regarding the ownership of a house. He submits that the F.I.R. has been registered by the S.-I., Ejaz, though he was not working as a Moharrir at the time of its registration. He submits that the petitioner has been involved malafidely in view of the above background.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner has been found guilty during the course of investigation. DSP (Legal) was also summoned by the Court to make statement in view of the above allegations against S.-I., Ejaz. The above allegation or story of mala fide has been denied by the DSP (Legal). According to the DSP (Legal), investigation has been conducted by two DSPs who could not be influenced by the said S.-I. According to him, the investigation was conducted fairly, justly and in accordance with law.
5. The name of the petitioner with a role is mentioned in the F.I.R. He has been found guilty by two DSPs, therefore, mala fide cannot be attached and for the same reasons extraordinary concession of bail cannot be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed and interim bail granted to the petitioner vide? order, dated 7-12-2005, is recalled. H.B.T./S-40/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.