YLR 2018

2018 PLP 740 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD MUBASHAR and 3 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.53862/B of 2017, decided on 16th August, 2017.
Honorable Judges
Abdul Sami Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2018 PLP 740 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Abdul Sami Khan, J
Parties MUHAMMAD MUBASHAR and 3 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
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 2018 PLP 740 (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 2018 PLP 740 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Sami Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 740 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD MUBASHAR and 3 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Headnotes / Summary

S. 498

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 148 & 149

Hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Ad interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of

FIR was registered with unexplained delay of eighteen days

No specific role was assigned to two accused persons whereas allegation of giving sota (stick) blow by co-accused was not supported by medical evidence

Complainant was not medically examined after the alleged incident

Another co-accused was assigned the role of causing injury on head of the injured but said co-accused was found merely present at the spot and he did not cause any injury to any body

Accused persons were previous non-convicts

Neither said accused were hardened, dangerous, desperate criminals nor they had committed alleged offence on the pretext of honour

Recovery of weapon of offence after lapse of more than one year and two months was of little help to the prosecution

Accused persons had already joined investigation which was complete to their extent, therefore no useful purpose would be served by sending them behind the bars so as to come out of jail on post-arrest bail after a few days

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused persons was confirmed accordingly. 2014 SCMR 1349 rel. Babar Hussain Warriach with petitioner in person. Irfan Zia, Deputy Prosecutor General and Hassan Baig, S.I. with record for the State.

Judgment & Decree

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 498 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.199/16, dated 02.06.2016 registered at Police Station Kanganpur, District Kasur in respect of offences under sections 337A(ii), 337F(i), 337L(2), 148, 149, P.P.C.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that there is an unexplained delay of eighteen days in registration of FIR, which prima facie reflects that the FIR has been got registered after due deliberation and consultation. As far as Naveed Ahmad and Ijaz Ali alias Sony petitioners are concerned, no specific role is assigned to them, whereas the allegation of giving sota blow by Muhammad Iftikhar petitioner on the head of Nazir Ahmad complainant is not supported by medical evidence as admittedly Nazir Ahmad complainant has not got himself medically examined after the alleged incident. Although Muhammad Mubashar petitioner has been assigned the role of causing injury on the head of Sughran Bibi injured, yet the fact remains that during the course of investigation he was found merely present at the spot and he did not cause any injury to Sughran Bibi injured. Even otherwise, it is an admitted position of the case that the petitioners are previous non-convict; neither they are hardened, dangerous, desperate criminals nor they have committed the alleged offence on the pretext of honour, therefore, section 337N(2), P.P.C. also comes to their rescue, which is reproduced as under:-- 337-N. Cases in which qisas for hurt shall not be enforced: (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, in all cases of hurt, the Court may, having regard to the kind of hurt caused by him, in addition to payment of arsh, award ta'zir to an offender who is a previous convict, habitual or hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal [or the offence has been committed by him in the name or on the pretext of honour] Provided that the ta'zir shall not be less than one-third of the maximum imprisonment provided for the hurt caused if the offender is a previous convict, habitual, hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or if the offence has been committed by him in the name or on the pretext of honour. The above provision of law clearly depicts that additional punishment of imprisonment as ta'zir can only be awarded to a person, who is previous convict or hardened, dangerous, desperate criminal or he has committed the offence on the pretext of honour, but all these elements are missing in this case. The person of the petitioners cannot be handed over to police only for the purpose of effecting recovery, which otherwise has lost relevancy with the passage of time as occurrence in this case took place on 15.06.2016. In such situation, recovery of weapons of offence after the lapse of more than one year and two months is of little help to the prosecution. In this regard, reliance can be placed on 2014 SCMR 1349. The petitioners have already joined the investigation, which is complete to their extent, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending them behind the bars so as to enable them to come out of jail on post-arrest bail after few days.

3. For what has been discussed above, false implication of the petitioners by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motive cannot be ruled out of consideration, hence, this petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide this Court's order dated 21.07.2017 is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. WA/M-157/L Bail confirmed.