YLR 2001

2001 PLP 2619 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1352-B of 2000, decided on 11th July, 2001.
Honorable Judges
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2001 PLP 2619 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
Parties MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2619 (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 2001 PLP 2619 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2619 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Arshad Ali Chauhan for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 11th July, 2001.

Headnotes / Summary

S.497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34/109

Bail, grant of

Record had shown that the accused was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and he had not been attributed any injury to any person

Only allegation levelled against the accused was in respect of hatching a conspiracy/abetting the co-accused for commission of the alleged offence

Accused though had been nominated in the F.LR. as an abetter but the details disclosed in the F.I.R. did not mention any source of said information

Prosecution was not possessed of any other material to support the allegation against the accused

Witnesses of conspiracy who overheard hatching of conspiracy two days prior to the incident kept quiet meanwhile till the occurrence took place

Worth and evidentiary value' of such piece of evidence could be considered at the time of trial

Contention of the complainant that principal accused still being fugitive from law, grant of bail to him would impede and hamper the efforts of the police to apprehend him was repelled, because one accused could not be held as a hostage for the arrest of the other

Case against the accused being that of further inquiry, bail was granted to him. Altaf - Ibrahim Qureshi for the Complainant. Muhammad Aslam Budh for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Arshad Ali Chauhan for Petitioner. Altaf - Ibrahim Qureshi for the Complainant. Muhammad Aslam Budh for the State. Date of hearing: 11th July, 2001. Through this petition Muhammad Sharif petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.26 registered at Police Station Dera Raheem, District Sahiwal on 29-1-2001 for offences under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that admittedly the present petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident in question and, thus, he has not been attributed any injury to any person. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is in respect of hatching of a conspiracy/providing abetment to his co-accused for commission of the alleged offences. Although the petitioner has been named in the F. I. R. as an abetter but the information so disclosed in the F.I.R. does not mention any source of such information. The F.I.R. in this case had been lodged on 29-1-2001 and after a passage of one day after registration of the F.I.R. two witnesses namely Muhammad Tufail and Abdul Hameed had made their statements before the Investigating Officer regarding overhearing of hatching of a conspiracy by the petitioner with his co-accused two days prior to the incident. They had kept quiet for the next two days till the occurrence in question and had come into the picture for the first time one day after the incident disclosing their overhearing of the alleged conspiracy hatched by the petitioner. The worth and evidentiary value of such a piece of evidence shall be considered by the learned trial Court at the time of the Trial. Apart from the prosecution is not possessed of any other material to support the allegation against the present petitioner.

3. It has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the principal accused of this case namely Muhammad Riaz alias Raja is still a fugitive from law and is at large and that admission of the present petitioner to bail shall impede and hamper the efforts of the police to apprehend the said fugitive. I have, however, remained unable to subscribe to the said contention of the learned counsel for the complainant. It is settled law that one accused person cannot be held as a hostage for the arrest of another.

4. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-832/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.