2003 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 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 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Khalil Ahmad for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 10th February, 2003
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Further inquiry‑‑‑Case was of two versions as three persons from the side of accused were injured during the occurrence and their injuries had been suppressed by the prosecution‑‑‑Accused who had been sent to judicial lock‑up, their case was of further inquiry falling under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused were admitted to bail in circumstances. Sajjad Jafri for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Further inquiry‑‑‑Case was of two versions as three persons from the side of accused were injured during the occurrence and their injuries had been suppressed by the prosecution‑‑‑Accused who had been sent to judicial lock‑up, their case was of further inquiry falling under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused were admitted to bail in circumstances. Hafiz Khalil Ahmad for Petitioners. Sajjad Jafri for the State. Date of hearing: 10th February, 2003 It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case of two versions, that three persons from‑the side of the present petitioner were injured in this case and their injuries have been suppressed by the prosecution, that occurrence had taken place in front of Baithak of the petitioner, that they have been sent to judicial lock‑up and their case is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioners are named in the F.I.R., specific roles are attributed to them, that offence falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., that statement of the doctor has already been recorded and case is fixed for further evidence for today, that injury received by Ghulam Rasool deceased was on the vital part and it is grievous in nature, that though the injuries on the person of Ghulam Rasool and Mst. Sakeena were declared as Shujja Munaqala but the petitioners have been found guilty by the Investigating Officer.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is a case of two versions, three persons from the side of the present petitioner were injured during the occurrence and their injuries have been suppressed by the prosecution, they have been sent to judicial lock‑up and their case is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, this petition is accepted. Petitioners are allowed bail subject to furnishing bail Bonds to the tune of Rs.30,000 (Thirty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. H.B.T./M‑2209/L Bail granted.