2007 P Cr (PLP)
MOEEN AKHTAR alias MEENOO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J |
| Parties | MOEEN AKHTAR alias MEENOO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 P Cr (PLP) (MOEEN AKHTAR alias MEENOO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). 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
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324
School leaving certificate showed that the accused was minor at the time of occurrence and was sixteen years of age
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Anwar v. The State 1993 SCMR 1001 rel. Ch. Ghulam Muhammad, with Shahzad Ahmad, S.-I. with record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.
Petitioner Moeen Akhtar alias Meenoo, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.333, dated 11-9-2005, offence under sections 324 and 34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Gaggo, Tehsil. Burewala District Vehari for the allegations that the petitioner while armed with .30 bore pistol along with his co-accused made a fire, which hit Abdul Khaliq, father of the complainant and the same pierced through the neck of the victim, hence, this case.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case with mala fide intention due to party faction. The petitioner was minor at the time of occurrence, therefore, his case falls under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. According to the F.I.R. the petitioner fired only one fire and did not repeat the same and the injury attributed to him is on non-vital part of the body of the victim, making his case that of further inquiry into his guilt. Further contends that the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and is no more required by the police. The challan has been submitted in the Court on 30-9-2005, but no progress has been made so far. Reliance has been placed on Muhammad Anwar v. The State 1993 SCMR 1001, therefore, petitioner deserves the concession of bail.
3. Conversely, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail petition contending that the petitioner is specifically nominated iii the F.I.R. with specific role of causing injuries with his .30 bore pistol on the vital part of the body of the victim. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. hence, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it manifests that according to the school leaving certificate, the petitioner was minor at the time of occurrence and was sixteen years of age. Relying on the above said authority of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to 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 the learned trial Court. H.B.T. /M-535/L Bail granted.