1997 P Cr (PLP)
YARA — Petitioner Versus Haji UMAR HAYAT and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1997 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | YARA — Petitioner Versus Haji UMAR HAYAT and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 P Cr (PLP) (YARA — Petitioner Versus Haji UMAR HAYAT and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Asghar Khan Rokhri for Petitioner.
- Bashir Ahmad Gujjar for Respondents Nos. l and 2.
- 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Assistant Advocate-General and gone through the record before me. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant is that both Haji Umar Hayat and .his son Umar Draz respondents-accused did not join the investigation for a considerable time and as such they stand connected with the occurrence. According to him, due to the litigation between Haji: -Umar Draz respondent and Mian Khan and occurrence has taken place and that they are not entitled to enjoy the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. I do not agree with him. At this stage it would be proper to express that the learned Assistant Advocate-General supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for both the respondents-accused has rightly canvassed that with the material collected by the prosecution to be produced during the occurrence the involvement of the respondents-accused is to be viewed with caution. About the pendency of the litigation between Mian Khan on the one side and Haji Umar Hayat and Umar Draz respondents-accused on the other side no documentary material has been collected during the investigation. The mere verbal statements of the P.Ws. may not muster the desired defect even during the trial. This is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect of the matter is that Nazir and Ashraf P.Ws. intimated Yara complainant about the plan chalked by the respondents-accused about the occurrence. There is general type of narration in the F. I. R. without containing the place where the plan was chalked out and the reason about the presence of the aforesaid P.Ws. at that time. Without prejudice I am tempted to express that prima facie such an allegation does not sound to the reason and I am tempted to express that it may be an overdoing on the part of the Police Officer. Furthermore there is no material before this Court that the respondents-accused have misused the concession of bail or have tampered the prosecution evidence and that there is apprehension of their abscondence. It was the duty of the Investigating Officer to summon the accused under Rule 2, Chapter XXV of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 through the written direction according to Form No.25.2(1). It is the natural conduct of an accused not to go to the police to join the investigation as he has to save his skin. As such this assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has failed to touch my sense of appreciation. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that both Haji Umar Hayat and his son Umar Draz respondents-accused have rightly been allowed the concession of bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and there is no ground for the cancellation of the said order.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860). S.302/324/l48/149/109-- Cancellation of bail
F.I.R. contained only a general allegation against the accused for having chalked out a plan about the occurrence without disclosing the place where such plan was made and without showing the reason about the presence of the prosecution witnesses there at that time and prima facie said allegation did not appeal to reason and appeared to be an overdoing on the part of the police
Accused had neither misused the concession of bail nor there was any apprehension of their abscondence
Non-association of accused with police investigation could be due to their natural conduct for saving their skin-- Accused had been rightly allowed pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court and the impugned order did not call for any interference.
Judgment & Decree
Different co-accused of Haji Umar Hayat and Umar Draz respondents accused, while armed with lethal weapons, are said to have caused the intentional murder of Sardara and Allah Yar and made the murderous assault upon Ashraf and Falak Sher P.Ws. F.I.R. No.433, dated 31-12-1995 stands registered at Police Station Lalian, District Jhang under sections 302, 324, 148/149, 109, P.P.C. The cause of occurrence is stated to be that there was litigation between Umar Draz respondent-accused and one Mian Khan who had become a fugitive of law and the assailants suspected that the complainant party helped him (Mian Khan). It is narrated in the F.I.R. that the plan in the matter was chalked by Haji Umar Hayat and his son Umar Draz respondents-accused about the occurrence regarding which Nazir and Ashraf P.Ws. had intimated them, but they (complainant party) did not give importance to the same. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot admitted the respondents-accused to pre arrest bail and the complainant has tiled this petition .for the cancellation of the same.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Assistant Advocate-General and gone through the record before me. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant is that both Haji Umar Hayat and .his son Umar Draz respondents-accused did not join the investigation for a considerable time and as such they stand connected with the occurrence. According to him, due to the litigation between Haji: -Umar Draz respondent and Mian Khan and occurrence has taken place and that they are not entitled to enjoy the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. I do not agree with him. At this stage it would be proper to express that the learned Assistant Advocate-General supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for both the respondents-accused has rightly canvassed that with the material collected by the prosecution to be produced during the occurrence the involvement of the respondents-accused is to be viewed with caution. About the pendency of the litigation between Mian Khan on the one side and Haji Umar Hayat and Umar Draz respondents-accused on the other side no documentary material has been collected during the investigation. The mere verbal statements of the P.Ws. may not muster the desired defect even during the trial. This is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect of the matter is that Nazir and Ashraf P.Ws. intimated Yara complainant about the plan chalked by the respondents-accused about the occurrence. There is general type of narration in the F. I. R. without containing the place where the plan was chalked out and the reason about the presence of the aforesaid P.Ws. at that time. Without prejudice I am tempted to express that prima facie such an allegation does not sound to the reason and I am tempted to express that it may be an overdoing on the part of the Police Officer. Furthermore there is no material before this Court that the respondents-accused have misused the concession of bail or have tampered the prosecution evidence and that there is apprehension of their abscondence. It was the duty of the Investigating Officer to summon the accused under Rule 2, Chapter XXV of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 through the written direction according to Form No.25.2(1). It is the natural conduct of an accused not to go to the police to join the investigation as he has to save his skin. As such this assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has failed to touch my sense of appreciation. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that both Haji Umar Hayat and his son Umar Draz respondents-accused have rightly been allowed the concession of bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and there is no ground for the cancellation of the said order. 3 I therefore, dismiss this petition N.H.Q./Y-6 Petition dismissed