2006 PLP 749 (YLR)
MAQSOOD AHMED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 749 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J |
| Parties | MAQSOOD AHMED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 749 (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 2006 PLP 749 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 749 (YLR) (MAQSOOD AHMED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Ahmed Khan Zai for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-F(v), (F-1), (A-2) (L-2), 148 & 149
Bail, cancellation of-Accused was admitted to bail by Trial Court on plea' of alibi
Impugned order had revealed that on the date when case was registered against accused, he remained admitted to hospital in connection with Renal Colic disease
Counsel for applicant/complainant, to that extent was not in a position to place on record any certificate from competent officer/Doctor to say that accused had never remained admitted in hospital in said period
Co-accused had not caused any injury to any of prosecution witnesses and allegation against said co-accused was that at the relevant time he was armed with Carbine and had made firing
Record showed that said co-accused was a man of advanced age and possibility of his involvement because of his relation with other co-accused, could not be ruled out
Trial Court in granting bail to accused persons having rightly exercised discretionary relief in their favour application for cancellation of bail, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM -UZ-ZAMAN, J.
Seeks cancellation of bail of respondents Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Arfan allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gojra vide order dated 16-11-2005 in case F.I.R. No.486 of 2005 dated 29-10-2005 for the offence under sections 337-F(v) F-1, A2, L2 and 148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Gojra District T.T. Singh.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the data available on the record, I have observed that Muhammad Arfan was admitted to bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge on the plea of alibi. The impugned order reveals that during the period from 25-10-2005 to 29-10-2005 Muhammad Arfan respondent remained admitted to hospital in connection with Renal Colic disease, to this extent learned counsel is not in a position to place on the record any certificate from the competent officer/Doctor to say that respondent Muhammad Arfan never remained admitted in the Mayo Hospital for the aforesaid period. As far as Muhammad Ramzan respondent is concerned admittedly he had not caused any injury to any of the prosecution witness, the allegation against him is that at the relevant time he was armed with Carbine and had made firing. According to the record he is a man of advanced age and possibility of his involvement because of his relation with other co-accused could not be ruled out. In the said circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly exercised the discretionary relief infavour of respondents. No ground for cancellation of bail is made out. Dismissed. H.B.T./M-22/L Application dismissed.