MLD 2004

2004 PLP 1832 (MLD)

KAMRAN MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2004-January-28
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2004 PLP 1832 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties KAMRAN MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1832 (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 2004 PLP 1832 (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: 2004 PLP 1832 (MLD) (KAMRAN MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S.497(2)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/337-F(v)/337-F(i)/34

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Injuries allegedly caused by accused, being not on the vital part of the body of the victim, it could not be said with certainty that accused had intention to kill injured prosecution witness

Would be seen at the trial stage, after recording of evidence, as to whether S. 324, P.P.C. was attracted or not

Case.was of two contradictory versions

Accused had been alleged to have caused fire-arm injury on person of victim, whereas according to Medico-legal report injuries caused to victim were by a blunt weapon

Police had already declared accused innocent, which had weakened the stand of prosecution

Case against accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry entitling him to be released on bail

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

Through this petition the petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.408 dated 19-10-2002 registered under sections 324/337-F(v)/337-F(i)/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Harappa District Sahiwal.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, that it is a case of cross-version wherein the mother of the petitioner received injuries; that co-accused of the petitioner namely Aamer and Sohail had been found innocent during the investigation which makes the case of prosecution doubtful, that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 4 months and the investigation is complete and challan has been submitted and petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation.

3. Conversely learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the grant of bail.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. The record reveals that injuries caused by the petitioner are not on the vital part of the body of the victim, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said with certainty that petitioner had intention to kill the injured P.W. It would be seen at the trial stage after recording of evidence whether section 324, P.P.C. Is attracted or not. Admittedly it is a case of two contradictory versions according to the other version the complainant had injured the mother of the petitioner and to this effect a separate F.I.R. Has been registered against the complainant of this case and others. It has further been noticed that petitioner has been alleged to have caused fire-arm injury on the person of Mst. Nazi whereas according to medico legal report injuries caused to her were by a blunt weapon. The police had already declared the petitioner innocent, which has weakened the stand of the prosecution. Keeping in view all these factors, I am of the considered opinion that case against the petitioner falls within the ambit of further enquiry entitling him to be released on bail. Accordingly, I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) with surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./K-56/L Bail granted.