2015 PLP 835 (YLR)
MOHSIN ALI and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2015 PLP 835 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu and Miss Aalia Neelum, JJ |
| Parties | MOHSIN ALI and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 835 (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 2015 PLP 835 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu and Miss Aalia Neelum, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 835 (YLR) (MOHSIN ALI and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Azam Nazeer Tarar for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.336, 337-A(i), 337-L(2), 337-H, 353, 186, 224, 225, 440, 148 & 149
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7
Itlaf-i-Salahiyyat-i-udw, causing Shajjah-i-Khafifah, hurt, hurt by rash or negligent act, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, obstructing public servant in discharge of public function, resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension, resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person, mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt, rioting, common object, act of terrorism
Seven accused were not named in the FIR
Generalized allegations, had been levelled against only three accused
No specific allegation had been assigned to any one, except for being a member of mob
Question of common intention, was to be decided by the Trial Court after recording evidence
At bail stage; no definite conclusion could be drawn, as it needed deeper appreciation of evidence
No specific overt act, having been attributed to accused persons, they were admitted to bail, in circumstances. Munir Ahmad Sial, Deputy Prosecutor General and Khalid, S.I. with record for the State. Muhammad Tanveer Chaudhry for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MISS. AALIA NEELUM, J.
Through the instant petition, Mohsin Ali, Muhammad Faisal, Zaka Ullah, Zahid Ali, Ansar Maalik, Muhammad Tahir Attari, Muzammal Shahzad, Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Naveed and Muhammad Abu Bakar, petitioners seek post arrest bail in case FIR No.540 dated 19-7-2014, registered under sections 336, 337-A(i), 337L(2), 337H, 353, 186, 224, 225, 440, 148, 149, P.P.C. read with Section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as per contents of FIR is that in the night of 19-7-2014 the complainant along with other police officials, having arrested Zulfiqar alias Bhuttoo etc., in connection with case FIR No.539/2014 under section 216, P.P.C. and 13 of Arms Ordinance had returned to the Police Station, when a political party along with the present petitioners and ten unknown persons while armed with deadly weapons and "sotas" appeared before the main gate of the Police Station but the complainant got it locked from inside for the safety of the Police Station. The assailants also brick-batted gate of the Police Station and also hurled abuses, grappled with the police officials. His teeth were also broken during the occurrence and assailants torn uniform of the police officials. In the same occurrence, the assailants forcibly got released the accused persons while sloganeering against the police.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Admittedly petitioners Nos.1 to 7 were not named in the First Information Report whereas the complainant has levelled generalized allegations against petitioners Nos.8 to
10. No specific allegation has been assigned to any one except for being a member of mob. The question of common intention was to be decided by the learned trial court after recording evidence and at bail stage no definite conclusion could be drawn as it needed deeper appreciation of evidence. As no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioners, we are inclined to accept the post arrest bail petition and admit them to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. HBT/M-11/L Bail granted.