2007 PLP 3076 (YLR)
FAYYAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 3076 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. Bilal Khan, J |
| Parties | FAYYAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 3076 (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 2007 PLP 3076 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. Bilal Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 3076 (YLR) (FAYYAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34/148/149
Bahr grant of
Accused was not named in F.I.R.
Complainant had involved the accused in the case in his supplementary statement after seventeen days of registration of the case
Accused had only indulged in aerial firing
Culpability of accused under S.34, P.P.C. needed further probe within the meaning of S. 497(2), Cr. P. C.
Abscondence of accused would not disentitle him to bail if otherwise he was entitled to the same--Accused was not previous convict and he was in custody for .the last one year
Trial of accused had not yet commenced
Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Zahid Hussain Khan for the Petitioner. Ms. Naseem Noor for the State with Muhammad Ashraf A.S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
M. BILAL KHAN, J.
Fayyaz son of Sultan, the petitioner, by .filing the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.16, dated 7-2-2004, registered at Police Station Jandanwala, District Bhakkar for an offence under section 324/34 P.P.C. Sections 148, 149 P.P.C. were added later on.
2. The case of the prosecution as it unfolded in the F. I. R. registered at the instance of Attaullah son of Amanullah, was that Shaukat and Muhammad Riaz armed with pistols, had launched a murderous assault against the complainant party, as a result of which Samiullah, a brother of the complainant, suffered serious fire-arm injuries on his abdomen. Muhammad Riaz co-accused was also attributed a fire shot at the brother of the complainant, which, however, missed. Two unknown persons allegedly armed with .12-bore guns also indulged in aerial firing. The motive according to the complainant was that about a year ago there was a fight between the complainant and the accused party. However, later on the respectables of the area had got effected a compromise, but Muhammad Riaz and others kept on nourishing the grudge and as a result thereof they had assaulted the complainant party.
3. The, petitioner was arrested on 12-1-2005 and is in custody ever since. His application for post-arrest bail had been turned down initially by the learned Magistrate Section. 30, Bhakkar on 18-1-2005 and thereafter by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar on 3-2-2005. Hence, the instant petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record brought by Muhammad Ashraf, A.S.I.
5. It has straightaway been observed that the petitioner's name did not figure in the F.I.R. His name surfaced for the first time on 24-2-2004, when supplementary statement of the complainant had been recorded, i.e. seventeen days after registration of the case. The petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender, but he is now in custody for the last almost eleven months. It has also been observed that the only allegation against the petitioner was A that he indulged in aerial firing and had not done any material damage during the transaction, although he was allegedly carrying afire-arm. His culpability under section 34 P.P.C. heeds further probe within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The mere fact that he had remained a proclaimed offender would not disentitle him' to concession of bail, if otherwise the facts and circumstances are such which entitle him to the said concession. Even otherwise, as stated earlier, he is in custody for the last almost one year. He is not a previous record holder and the trial has yet not commenced.
6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfactiou of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./F-12/L Bail allowed.