2006 PLP 966 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 966 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J. and Qazi Muhammad Farooq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal, Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 966 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal, Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 966 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J. and Qazi Muhammad Farooq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 966 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302/34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Bail, refusal of---Accused had been specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role of raising "Lalkara" to facilitate the principal accused to commit the murder of the deceased---Prior to the present occurrence a criminal case was got registered against the accused at the instance of the deceased wherein he and his daughter had to appear as witnesses---In such background it could not be assured at this stage that the "Lalkara" raised by the accused was proverbial---Accused, prima facie, was not entitled to bail---Leave to appeal was refused to accused accordingly.Ch. Muhammad Arshad Ramay, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Latif Ramay, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.Hasnat Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court, Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record and Ms. Yasmin Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the State.
- Date of hearing: 31st October, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 16-9-2003 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4333-B of 2002).
Judgment & Decree
SH. RIAZ AHMAD, CI
Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 16-9-2002 whereby the bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.90, dated 26-1-2002 registered with Police Station, Sadar Faisalabad on charges under sections 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code was dismissed. (2). In support of this petition for leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been attributed only the proverbial Lalkara, and therefore, he is entitled to the grant of bail. The contention is devoid of force, because the facts of the case disclose that on the fateful day of complainant along with Allah Ditta, Muhammad Anwar alias Anari, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ajmal armed with .30 bore pistols were sitting behind a wall along with the petitioner. The petitioner who was armed with pistol had raised Lalkara that Muhammad Hayat should be taught a lesson for giving evidence against him. The complainant and his father ran away, but all the accused persons including the petitioner chased and ultimately encircled them. Muhammad Anwar fired a pistol shot on Muhammad Hayat hitting him on his head who died at the spot. (3). We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, complainant and the learned Addl. A.G. Punjab. The petitioner has been specifically nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role of raising Lalkara to facilitate Muhammad Anwar to commit the murder of the deceased has been attributed to him. The background of the case is that prior to this occurrence, a criminal case was got registered against the petitioner at the instance of the deceased Muhammad Hayat, wherein, he and his daughter had to appear as witnesses. In this view of the matter, at this stage, it cannot be assumed that Lalkara raised by the petitioner was proverbial. Hence, prima facie, petitioner is not entitled to bail. However, our assessment is purely tentative in nature and would not affect the mind of the trial Court in any manner. In terms of order, dated 16-7-2003, petitioner was admitted to ad interim post-arrest bail and in view of what has been discussed above, we recall the said order and direct that petitioner shall be taken into custody forthwith. N.H.Q./M-945/SC Leave refused.