2003 PLP 2305 (YLR)
EJAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 2305 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | EJAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2305 (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 2003 PLP 2305 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 2305 (YLR) (EJAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Manzoor Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Further inquiry-- Accused was not named in the F.I.R. and his name appeared for the first time in supplementary statements made about two and half months after the occurrence by complainant and two alleged eye-witnesses-- Question of evidentiary value of such belated statements was a matter to be dealt with at the trial
Even in said supplementary statements no overt act had been ascribed to the accused
Accused was found innocent by police and his name was placed in Column No. 2 of the challan and accused had been left at the mercy of the Court
All such facts essentially had made the case of accused as one of further inquiry
Accused was behind the bars for the last about eight months and was not a previous convict
Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Muhammad Ramzan Khalid Joyia for the Complainant. Hassan Raza Rizvi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner Ijaz Hussain through the instant petition seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.91 dated 22-3-2002, under section 302/34, P. P. C. , Police Station Rohilanwali, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 11-3-2002 at about 7-30 p.m. Mukhtar Hussain, the son of the complainant had poured acid contained in a bucket on his brother Shamsher Haider's face. At that time two unknown persons we standing with him. The injured was carried the hospital. He died due to the same. The incident had taken place on a dispute over money.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he is not named in the F.I.R.; that in the same (F.I.R.), it has been mentioned that Mukhtar Hussain, the son of the complainant had thrown acid on the face of his brother Shamsher Haider while two unknown persons standing with him; that it is not believable that a mother could not identify his real son, if he had been present at the spot at the relevant time, as he is real brother of the deceased; that his name for the first time has figured in the supplementary statement of the complainant Mst. Manzoor Mai, shown to have been recorded on 24-5-2002; that such belated supplementary statement implicating him carried no value in the eyes of law and the same deserves not to be given effect to; that even, if the prosecution case may be taken as it is, no role qua the commission of crime is ascribed to him; that the motive is also directly not relatable to him that during the investigation he has been found to be innocent and his name has been placed in Column No.2 of the challan report and he has been left to the mercy of the Court and all these facts make his-case as one of further inquiry; and that he is behind the bars; and that he is stated to be previous non-convict.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the application on the ground that he is real brother of the deceased and no mother could implicate his son falsely; that after the death of the complainant, a private complaint has been brought forth; and that the challan stands submitted in the Court. However, the learned State Counsel has conceded that the name of the petitioner has been placed in Column No.2 of the challan report and he has been left to the mercy of the Court as having been found innocent by the D.S.P., Sadar, Muzaffargarh.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of the available record.
6. The fact remains that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. According to the same, Mukhtar Hussain, the son of the complainant had a basket containing acid and he poured the same on the face of his deceased brother Shamsher Haider and two unknown persons were standing with him at that time. In the F.I.R. no overt act has been ascribed to the unknown persons.
7. As per record, his name came for the first time in the supplementary statement of the complainant and two alleged to be the eye-witnesses namely Mumtaz Hussain and Amir Hussain. The same are only to the effect that they have firm belief that the two unknown persons mentioned in the F.I.R. were Ijaz Hussain and Ghayyur. These supplementary statements shown to have been recorded about two and half months after the alleged incident. The question of evidentiary value of such belated statements is a matter to be dealt with at the trial. However, in the same even no overt act has been ascribed to him.
7. Besides than this, admittedly he has been found innocent by the. D.S.P. and his name placed in Column No.2 of the challan and he has been left to the mercy of the Court. All these facts essentially make his case as one of further inquiry and so is covered under subsection (2) of section
497. Cr.P.C. He is behind the bars for the last about eight months and stated to be previous non-convict.
8. In these circumstances, I accept this petition and admit him to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
9. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges. H.B.T./E-30/L Bail granted.