2012 PLP 2853 (YLR)
ISFANDYAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE through Additional Advocate General and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 2853 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Assadullah Khan Chamkani, J |
| Parties | ISFANDYAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE through Additional Advocate General and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 2853 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 2853 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Assadullah Khan Chamkani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 2853 (YLR) (ISFANDYAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE through Additional Advocate General and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Qayum Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 3rd September, 2012.
- THE STATE through Additional Advocate General and another---Respondents
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(ii) & 34
Shajjah-i-m udihah, common intention
Allegation against accused was that he caused injuries to the complainant on his head and other parts of his body
Alleged offence, even if proved, would entail punishment which might extend to five years and might also make accused liable to fine
Grant of bail was a rule and. refusal an exception in case of offences which carried punishment up to ten years or less
Accused was behind bars for about two months and investigation in the case was complete and he was no more required for further investigation
Mere commencement of trial before court or submission of challan before the court was no ground for refusal of bail to the accused, if his case was otherwise one of further inquiry
Accused was released on bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 rel.
S. 497(2)
Submission of challan before court
Effect
Mere commencement of trial before court or submission of challan before the Court was no ground for refusal of bail if case of accused was otherwise one of further inquiry within the ambit of S.497(2), Cr.P.C. Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 rel. M. Igbal Khan Essa Khel for the State. Rahman Ali for other Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.
Isfandyar has applied for bail after he failed to secure his such relief from the courts below, being involved in case F.I.R. No. 237 dated 5-7-2012 under sections 337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Kalakot, on the charges that he along with his co-accused on 23-6-2012 at 08.00 hours caused injuries to the complainant on his head and other parts of his body.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that accused/petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in the case; that besides the inordinate delay in lodging of the report, as per affidavits submitted by the alleged eye-witnesses, mentioned in the first report, namely Najib Ullah and Fazal Aziz, they have not supported the version of the prosecution, therefore, the case of the petitioner requires further probe into his guilt. He further argued that the petitioner is an old man and is of infirm physique and the offence for which the petitioner is charged also does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be released him on bail.
3. As against this, learned counsel for complainant and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the State argued that the accused/petitioner is directly charged by the complainant with specific role for causing injury on his head and Medico-legal Report and other material available on the file also support the version of the complainant, therefore, at this stage of the 'case, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. Without discussing other merits of the case which may prejudice the case of either side, suffice it to say that the offence for which the petitioner is charged, if proved, entailing punishment which may extend to five years and may also liable to fine, and it is now settled that an offence which carries punishment upto ten years or less then the grant of bail is a rule and refusal thereof is an exception. Moreover, the petitioner is behind the bars for about two months and investigation in the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. The learned State Counsel pointed out that as on 31-7-2012 the case was put in court, therefore, the petitioner, at this stage of the case, is not entitled to the concession of bail but his such arguments is not convincing as mere the commencement of trial before the Court or submission of Challan before the Court is no ground for refusal of bail if case of the accused is otherwise of further inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case of "Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another, PLD 1989 SC
585. Consequently, this application is accepted and the petitioner is released on bail in case he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa Judicial Magistrate who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. MWA/295/P Bail granted.