2021 PLP 1912 (MLD)
RASHEED AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 1912 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RASHEED AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 1912 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 1912 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 1912 (MLD) (RASHEED AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Barrister Danyal Ijaz Chadhar for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.497(2) & 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 440, 148 & 149
Murderous assault
Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Admittedly, present case was one of two versions, one brought by the complainant on the record through the FIR and the second was brought on the record by the accused persons through their defence, which was not investigated by the investigating officer
However, the version of accused persons was supported by the Medico Legal Certificate, so, it was (yet) to be determined by the Trial Court as to which version was the correct one
False implication of the accused persons could not be ruled out
Case of accused persons was one of further inquiry, and sending them behind bars would not serve any useful purpose for the prosecution
Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the accused persons was confirmed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
AALIA NEELUM, J.
The petitioners-Rasheed Ahmad, Waqas Ahmad and Aftab Ahmad seek pre arrest bail in case FIR No.1691-2020 dated 10.10.2020, under Sections 440, 148 and 149, P.P.C., subsequently added offence under Sections 337-F(i), 337-F(iii) and 324, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Ghalib Market, Lahore.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. The petitioners Nos.1 and 3 are named in the FIR with collective and joint role for causing murderous assault upon the complainant and his brother namely Hafiz Maeem with sharp edge weapon. Whereas the name of the petitioner No.2-Waqas Ahmad had surfaced on the record through supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 22.10.2020, in which he was assigned a specific role for causing injury on hand of brother of the complainant namely Hafiz Naeem with a bite. Admittedly, the petitioner No.2 is son of the petitioner No.1 and brother of the petitioner No.3 and non identity of the petitioner No.2 at the spot by the complainant and prosecution witnesses is not made out. As the petitioner No.2 also works with the petitioner No.1 in the shop located in front of the shop of complainant. Even otherwise, the petitioner No.1 moved an application for registration of case on 10.10.2020 whereupon rapt No.08 dated 11.10.2020 was incorporated and during investigation, through case diary No.09 dated 25.10.2020, the Investigating Officer has also brought on the record the version of the petitioner No.1, revealing that Aftab Ahmad, petitioner No.3 has also received injuries during the alleged occurrence and till date, the investigating officer has not investigated the version brought on the record by the petitioner No.1.
4. Admittedly, it is a case of two versions, one brought by the complainant on the record through FIR and the second was brought on the record by the petitioners through their defence, which was not investigated by the investigating officer. However, the same is supported by the Medico Legal Certificate. So, it is to be determined by the learned trial court that which version is correct one. All above facts, make case of the petitioners one of further inquiry. False implication of the petitioners cannot be ruled out. The petitioners have successfully made out a case for pre-arrest bail and at this stage, sending the petitioners behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose for the prosecution.
5. For the reasons supra, instant petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. MWA/R-12/L Bail confirmed.