YLR 2002

2002 PLP 3045 (YLR)

MUMTAZ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2994‑B of 2001, decided on 24th January, 2002.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 3045 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J
Parties MUMTAZ AHMAD‑‑‑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 2002 PLP 3045 (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 2002 PLP 3045 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3045 (YLR) (MUMTAZ AHMAD‑‑‑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

  • Khan Imtiaz Ali Khan for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 24th January, 2002.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/337-A(ii)/285/148/149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Injury attributed to accused had been declared simple in nature‑‑ Accused though was armed with a rifle, yet allegation against him was that he used Butt of his rifle and caused injury on the hand of prosecution witness‑‑‑Accused did not cause any injury to deceased‑‑‑Mere fact that accused, who was armed with a rifle, did not make any fire, prima facie had shown that he had no intention to cause intentional death of anyone‑‑‑Allegations against accused needing further probe and inquiry within purview of S.497(2), Cr. P. C, he was admitted to bail. Azmat Ali Taga for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Khan Imtiaz Ali Khan for Petitioner. Azmat Ali Taga for the State. Date of hearing: 24th January, 2002. At the very outset the learned counsel for the petitioners states that he would not press this bail application to the extent of Mumtaz Ahmad petitioner. Dismissed as having not been pressed.

2. Muhammad Anwar petitioner has sought his postarrest bail in case F.I.R. No.302 of 2001 registered at Police Station Saddar, Arifwala on 15‑7‑2001 for offences under sections 302/337‑A(ii)/285/148/149, P.P.C.

3. According to the F.I.R. eight persons launched a murderous assault on the complainant party causing the death of Muhammad Abbas and also caused injuries on Shah Muhammad. The precise allegation against the petitioner Muhammad Anwar is that he was armed with a rifle and caused injury with the butt of his rifle on the right hand of P.W. Shah Muhammad.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The injury attributed to the petitioner has been declared simple in nature. Although the petitioner was armed with a rifle yet the allegation against him is that he used the butt of his rifle and caused injury on the hand of Shah Muhammad P.W. Admittedly, the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased. The mere fact that the petitioner who was armed with a rifle did not make any fire prima facie shows that he had no intention to cause intentional death of anyone. The allegations against the petitioner in these circumstances need further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M‑1195/L Bail granted.