2004 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ alias RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ alias RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 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 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ alias RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Chaudhary for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 2nd July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34/109‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑No sufficient evidence was available with prosecution to connect accused with commission of crime as no motive was alleged against the accused‑‑‑No recovery was effected from accused and he was not named in F.I.R.‑‑‑Active participation of accused in actual crime was not believed by police itself‑‑‑Supplementary statement of complainant in which accused was involved was recorded after about one and half months from occurrence‑‑‑Extra‑judicial confession allegedly made by accused before `Punchayat" was a weak type of evidence‑‑‑Case against accused being of further inquiry, he was admitted to bail. Ghulam Muhammad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ghulam Muhammad for the State. Date of hearing: 2nd July, 2002. Petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.28 of 2002, dated 20‑1‑2002, under sections 302/34 and 109, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Saddar Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the F.I.R. are that on the night of 20‑1‑2002, the petitioner was present in the house of his brother- in‑law Naik Muhammad alongwith other relatives. At about mid‑night, on hearing some noise, the said Naik Muhammad went out in the open yard. After him the complainant and Abbas P.W. also went out and saw in the electric light that three unknown persons were present. One of them fired with a .30 bore pistol on Naik Muhammad, which hit him on the head who fell down, whereafter, the accused persons left the place of occurrence. The injured was being removed to the hospital and in way he expired.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was involved in this case later on through a supplementary statement made by the complainant on 10‑3‑2002; that he was involved on the conspiracy of the murder of Naik Muhammad; that no recovery of any incriminating material is attributed to the petitioner; that no motive is attributed to the petitioner and that only other evidence available against the petitioner is that extra‑judicial confession before a Punchayat, which is a very weak type of evidence. It is further contended that the petitioner was found innocent during investigation conducted by the police to the extent of active participation in the offence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel has opposed the prayer of bail made by the petitioner.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. At this stage, there does not appear to be any sufficient evidence with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime as there is no alleged motive against the petitioner. There is no recovery from him. He is not named in the F.I.R. His active participation' in the actual crime is not believed by the police itself. The supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded after about 1‑1/2 months. The, extra‑judicial confession before the Punchayat is a weak type of evidence. In these circumstances, the petitioner's case is one of further inquiry. Resultantly, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./M‑2211/L Bail granted.