2000 PLP 1074 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus AMJAD ALI and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1074 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Sh. Riaz Ahmed arid Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus AMJAD ALI and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1074 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1074 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Sh. Riaz Ahmed arid Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1074 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus AMJAD ALI and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hasnat Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Latif, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st December, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal. against the order, dated 3-6-1999 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2546-B of 1999).
S.497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337-F(i)/337-F(iii)/337 H(ii)/448/148/149
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--. Cancellation of bail
Allegations of theft and abduction after making preparation having not been substantiated in course of investigation, Ss.365 & 382, P.P.C. had been deleted from the F.I.R. by the Investigating Officer
Injured witness had only received a blunt weapon injury and not any fire-arm injury despite the allegation that five accused armed with fire arms had resorted to indiscriminate firing at the time of occurrence
High Court in such circumstances had rightly found the case against accused being one of further inquiry
Discretion exercised by High Court was in consonance with the law laid down by the superior Courts to govern the grant of bail
Leave to appeal was accordingly declined by Supreme Court to the complainant.
Judgment & Decree
SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.
The complainant in a criminal case, namely, Bashir Ahmed seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order, dated 3-6-1999 delivered by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondents were allowed bail.
2. The occurrence in this case had allegedly taken place on 27-9-1998 at 9-15 a.m. inside the shop of Muhammad Sultan in the area of Hujra Shah Moqeem at a distance of 1 kilometer from the Police Station which registered the case. It may be stated here that the F.I.R. was lodged on 28-9-1998 at 3-00 p.m. by the petitioner, brother-in-law of injured Muhammad Sultan, who had been caused injuries with a blunt weapon. Vide F.I.R. No.494 of 1998, 28-9-1998 the case was initially registered against the respondent under section 337-F(i)/337-F(iii)/337-H(ii)/448/382/365/148/149, P.P.C.
3. The allegations are that respondent Amjad Ali armed with rifle, Javed armed with .12 bore gun, Muhammad Arif armed with a pistol, Muhammad Ashraf armed with Kalashnikov and Sarfraz armed with pistol alongwith 14 other persons resorted to indiscriminate firing. However, the only injury on the person of injured Sultan was caused by blunt weapon and no fire-arm injury was received by Sultan. In course of the investigation of this case the Investigating Officer also came to the conclusion that the allegations of theft and abduction after making preparation could not be substantiated, and thus, sections 365 and 382, P.P.C. were deleted. On account of the deletion of the offences because Sultan had not received any injury with a fire-arm; the case was stated to be of further inquiry and accordingly the learned Single Judge admitted the respondents to bail vide order impugned.
4. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have also gone through the order impugned. In our view the discretion exercised by the 8 learned Judge in Chambers is in consonance with the law laid down by the superior Courts to govern the grant of bail. Hence no case for interference by this Court is made out, and thus, this petitions is dismissed. N.H.Q./B-8/S Leave refused.