2017 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD EJAZ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD EJAZ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD EJAZ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jamshaid Ali Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324 & 34
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention
Accused, though was nominated in the FIR, but no role, whatsoever had been attributed to him
Only allegation against accused was that he was present at the spot empty handed at the time of occurrence along with co-accused
Accused had not caused any injury to the deceased as well as to the injured; injuries to said persons were specifically attributed to other accused person
Question of sharing common intention by accused with co-accused, in such eventualities, would be determined at trial
Accused was previous non-convict and never involved in any other case
Accused was behind the bars since 20-12-2015
Investigation of the case was complete and accused was no more required for further investigation
Further incarceration of accused in jail would not serve any useful purpose
Mere heinousness of offence, was no ground to refuse bail to accused, who otherwise had become entitled to concession of post arrest bail
Case of accused having become one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., accused was granted bail, in circumstances. [Paras. 2 & 3 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.83/2014 dated 20.08.2014 under sections 302, 324, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Lawa, District Chakwal.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record has been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that although petitioner is nominated in FIR yet no role whatsoever has been attributed to him and only allegation against him is that he was present at the spot empty handed at the time of occurrence along with his co-accused. The petitioner has not caused any injury to Hamid Hussain deceased as well as Mst. Ghulam Fatima injured and the injuries to these persons are specifically attributed to Muhammad Asif and Zafar Iqbal co-accused. In these eventualities, question of sharing common intention by the petitioner with his co-accused shall be determined by the learned trial court at an appropriate stage. The petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. He is behind the bars since 20.12.2015. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation, therefore, his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. I may observe here that mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused, who otherwise becomes entitled to the concession of post arrest bail.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. HBT/M-126/L Bail granted.