2005 PLP 480 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 3 others ‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 480 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 3 others ‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 480 (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 2005 PLP 480 (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: 2005 PLP 480 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 3 others ‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. D. Chaudhary for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337‑A (ii)/337‑F(i)/337‑L(ii)/337‑H(ii)/440/148/149‑‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑‑Bail granted to accused was sought to be cancelled by complainant on ground that accused had attacked the complainant's side and injured as many as four persons‑‑ Accused's side had advanced counter version against complainant's side and nothing adverse to such version had been shown by the complainant which was sufficient to make the case of accused to be one of further inquiry in their guilt as when there would be cross version from other side, question as to who was aggressor and who was victim would arise needing determination at trial‑‑‑Such a situation had definitely furnished a ground for bail to accused‑‑‑None of the offences with which accused had been charged, fell within prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr. P. C. ‑‑ Grant of bail, in such‑like cases was a rule and refusal an exception and to withhold bail would amount to punishment in advance which was not the policy of law‑‑ Reasons which had weighed with Trial Court in allowing bail to accused being recognized in law, no case for its cancellation had been made out.
Judgment & Decree
"During the investigation co accused Mukhtar Ahmad, Yar Muhammad along with Muhammad Ashraf present‑petitioners have been declared innocent by the police vide Zimni No. 14 dated 24‑8‑2003 recorded by Naseer Ahmad, S.‑I./S.H.O. The petitioners are behind the bar since 15‑7‑2003. A cross version on the statement of Mukhtar Ahmad co accused was also got lodged against the complainant Jamal Din etc. No specific role has been ascribed in the F.I.R. to any of the accused/petitioners. The alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No recovery has been effected from the petitioners. Rather it has been held during the investigation that none was armed with any fire arm weapon. In such like cases the grant of bail is a and refusal an exception. They are behind the bar and are no more required for further investigation or recovery. The bail cannot be withheld as punishment."
4. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of the said order has come to this Court with the instant petition seeking cancellation of their bail.
5. It has been contended on his behalf that in fact they had attacked the petitioner's side and injured them, as many as four persons and so were not entitled to the indulgence as shown by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, to them.
6. I have carefully considered his submissions and gone into the copies of the documents annexed to the petition.
7. As is obvious from the above position, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while extending them the relief of bail was influenced by many reasons, one of these was that their side has advanced counter version against the petitioner's side. Nothing adverse to the same has been shown by the side of the petitioner. This reason also was sufficient to take their (respondents Nos.1 to 3) case to be one of further inquiry in their guilt as it has repeatedly been held by this Court that in such situation, when there may be cross version from the other side, the question that as to who was aggressor and who was aggressed upon needs determination to be made at trial. This definitely furnished a ground for bail to these respondents.
8. It may also he significant to mention here that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was also influenced by the fact that none of the offences with which they have been charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The petitioner's side has shown nothing as against the same. It may also be relevant to mention here that in such like cases the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. Even otherwise, to withhold bail in such like cases amounts to punishment in advance, which is not the policy of law.
9. There were other reasons as well, which have weighed with the learned lower Court in allowing them bail. All these are recognized in law.
10. Hence, I am of the considered view that no case for cancellation of bail to them has been made out.
11. The petition, therefore, having no merit is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑2262/L Petition dismissed.