2004 PLP 1946 (YLR)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1946 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, CJ |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1946 (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 2004 PLP 1946 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, CJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1946 (YLR) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian M. Nawaz Dhuddi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th April, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑-‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/337‑F(iii)/337‑A (ii)/148/149‑‑‑ Bail, refusal of‑‑‑Bail had been sought on the ground that medical officer who testified at trial had not noticed any injury on the forehead of deceased and that case of accused, in circumstances had become that of further inquiry‑‑‑Trial of criminal case against accused was almost concluded and most of prosecution witnesses stood examined‑‑‑Conclusion of trial was delayed by filing a private complaint by accused's side‑‑‑At the stage when evidence stood recorded, it would be unfair to give any finding qua guilt or innocence of accused as that observation would pre‑empt the judgment of the Trial Court, which was to be delivered in the near future‑‑‑Prayer of accused for grant of bail could not be considered at that stage. M. Younas Rana for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑-‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/337‑F(iii)/337‑A (ii)/148/149‑‑‑ Bail, refusal of‑‑‑Bail had been sought on the ground that medical officer who testified at trial had not noticed any injury on the forehead of deceased and that case of accused, in circumstances had become that of further inquiry‑‑‑Trial of criminal case against accused was almost concluded and most of prosecution witnesses stood examined‑‑‑Conclusion of trial was delayed by filing a private complaint by accused's side‑‑‑At the stage when evidence stood recorded, it would be unfair to give any finding qua guilt or innocence of accused as that observation would pre‑empt the judgment of the Trial Court, which was to be delivered in the near future‑‑‑Prayer of accused for grant of bail could not be considered at that stage. Mian M. Nawaz Dhuddi for Petitioner. M. Younas Rana for the State. Date of hearing: 17th April, 2003. Petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 278 of 2000 dated 19‑6‑2000 under sections 302/324/337‑F (iii)/337‑A(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Saddar Renala Khurd, District Okara. The case was registered against a number of persons including the petitioner with the allegations that they attacked the complainant party and inflicted blows with clubs to Abdul Razzaq, Manzoor Hussain complainant and other P.Ws. Abdul Razzaq died in the occurrence. The petitioner was ascribed a specific blow to Abdul Razzaq. The bail for the petitioner has been sought for on the ground that the Medical Officer who testified at trial had not noticed any injury on the forehead of the deceased and the petitioner's case as such became that of further inquiry. The State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.
2. The trial of criminal case against the accused including the petitioner has almost concluded and most of the prosecution witnesses stand examined. The conclusion of trial was delayed by filing a private complaint by the petitioner's side. At this stage when evidence stands recorded it would be unfair to give any finding qua guilt or innocence of the petitioner as that observation would pre‑empt the judgment of the trial Court, which is to be delivered in the near future. Therefore, I am not inclined to consider the prayer made by the petitioner at this stage. In case the trial is delayed beyond four months, the petitioner can move such an application again.
3. Dismissed. H.B.T./G‑25/L Bail application dismissed.