2017 PLP 6 (YLRN)
AQEEL HUSNAIN and others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 6 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi and Aslam Javed Minhas, JJ |
| Parties | AQEEL HUSNAIN 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 2017 PLP 6 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 6 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi and Aslam Javed Minhas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 6 (YLRN) (AQEEL HUSNAIN 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
- Zia ur Rehman Randhawa for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.336-B
Itlaf-i-Salahiyyat-i-Udw
According to medico-legal certificate, both eyes of the injured, had been affected and there was haziness of eyes and hampered vision, and he was 20% burnt
Accused persons, together went to the shop of injured, and jointly perpetrated the alleged occurrence
During the investigation, all accused persons, had been found involved in the occurrence
Complainant, or the Police, had no ill-will to falsely implicate accused persons in the promptly lodged FIR
Contentions raised by the counsel for accused, required deeper analysis of evidence, that was not permissible at bail stage
Alleged offence, fell under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
No ground for bail having been made out, bail petition stood dismissed, in circumstances. [Para. 5 of the judgment] Rana Muhammad Nadeem Kanjoo for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition, Aqeel Husnain, Ghulam Ali and Najaf Ali, petitioners seek their post arrest bail in a case registered against them vide FIR No.84/2015, dated 14.4.2015, under section 336-B, P.P.C. read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Police Station Jallah Arain, District Lodhran, for causing loss of eyesight and injuries on face and chest of Ghulam Shabbir, injured by throwing acid on him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that 11 persons have been roped in this case and it is not specified that who has actually thrown the acid by using the single jug; that the petitioners have been involved in this case due to mala fide and previous enmity, therefore, the case of the petitioners is of further inquiry.
3. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and argued that there is no mala fide or ill-will on the part of the complainant or the police to falsely involve the petitioners in this case of heinous nature and that the alleged offence falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, they are not entitled for the concession of post arrest bail.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. According to MLC both eyes of the injured, Ghulam Shabbir have been affected, there is haziness of eyes and hampered vision and he is 20% burnt. The petitioners along with Zohaib Hasan and other co-accused together went to the shop of injured and jointly perpetrated the alleged occurrence. During the investigation all the petitioners have been found involved in the occurrence. The complainant or the police have no ill-will to falsely implicate the petitioners in the promptly lodged FIR. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires deeper analysis of evidence that is not permissible at bail stage. The alleged offence falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, no ground for bail is made out, hence this petition has no force and same stands dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. HBT/A-104/L Bail refused.