2009 PLP 2281 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SHAHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 2281 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2281 (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 2009 PLP 2281 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2281 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SHAHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34/201
Bail, grant of-Further inquiry
Recovery of pistol with six bullets, prima facie, was the only evidence available with the prosecution against accused
Nomination of accused by complainant through a supplementary statement and that too without disclosing the basis for making such statement, had made the case of accused one of further inquiry
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Nadir Manzoor Duggal, Dy. P.-G. Syed Nadeem Haider Rizvi for the Complainant. Naeem, S.I.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.
Petitioner Muhammad Shahid seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.226/08 dated 10-7-2008 under sections 302, 34, 201 P.P.C. registered at Police Station Saddar Chichawatni District Sahiwal.
2. Prosecution story as narrated in the F.T.R. is that Muhammad Bilal son of the complainant was murdered and his dead body was thereafter recovered from the canal. In the supplementary statement, however, suspicion was shown against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to F.I.R. it was an unseen occurrence; that petitioner along with Boota co-accused was involved by the complainant through a supplementary statement recorded on 11-7-2008. It is further added that the said statement is even not based on any direct knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses; that there is no substantial piece of evidence for the time being in possession of the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime.
4. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contends that a .30-Bore pistol along with six live bullets was recovered from the petitioner and that he has been found guilty in the investigation.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Recovery of Pistol along with six bullets, prima facie, is the only evidence available with the prosecution against the petitioner. Nomination of petitioner by complainant on 11-7-2008 through a supplementary statement and that too without disclosing the basis for making such supplementary statement makes the case of petitioner one of further inquiry. He is accordingly admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-483/L Bail granted.