YLR 2009

2009 PLP 2317 (YLR)

MUBASHAR ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.10213/B of 2008, decided on 31st March, 2009.
Honorable Judges
Iqbal Hameedur Rehman, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2009 PLP 2317 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Iqbal Hameedur Rehman, J
Parties MUBASHAR ALI — 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 2009 PLP 2317 (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 2009 PLP 2317 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Iqbal Hameedur Rehman, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2317 (YLR) (MUBASHAR ALI — 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

  • Abdul Jabbar Langa for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S.497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 354, 337-F(vi), 148 & 149

Bail, grant of--Further inquiry

Injury attributed to accused indicated that he fired upon the legs of injured, which was not corroborated by the medico legal report

Co-accused, who was also attributed the role of causing firearm injury to the injured had been declared innocent during the investigation

Case of accused, in circumstances, had become that of further inquiry

Injury allegedly attributed to accused, was on the non-vital part of the body of the injured

Accused was behind the bars for the last about 11 months and was no more required for further investigation

Further detention of accused, in circumstances, would not serve any useful purpose

Challan though had been submitted, but the trial was not progressing

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Umer v. The State PLD 2004 SC 477; Raham Hussain v. The State and another 2008 YLR 1064 and Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2007 YLR 515 ref. Ghulam Qadir Bari, Asstt. P.-G. Punjab for the State.

Judgment & Decree

IQBAL HAMEEDUR REHMAN, J.

The learned counsel seeks post-arrest bail: of the petitioner in F.I.R. No.318/ 2006 dated 28-3-2008 under sections 324, 354, 148, 149, 337F(vi), P.P.C. Regis tered at Police Station Kahna, District Lahore.

2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R. the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused armed with fire-arm weapons caused injuries to Muhammad Shahbaz @ Sabi son of complainant and that he fired a shot with the Mouzer which hit to the son of the complainant on his right leg.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the three co-accused have been declared innocent during the investigation; that the petitioner had been arrested on 22-4-2008; that three is a delay of 5/6 hours in lodging of the F.I.R, The petitioner had only made a, single fire which hit on the right leg of the son of the complainant Muhammad Shahbaz alias Sabi and the fire of the co-accused namely Shaukat Ali also stated to hit on the right leg of the injured Shahbaz alias Sabi and this is not corroborated with the M.L.R. It is further stated that it cannot be ascertained that whose fire has impaired the legal of the injured as such the case of the petitioner has become that of further inquiry. It is further stated that the injury is on the non-vital part of the body of the injured; that the recoveries are fake.

4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner contending that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R; that the recovery has been effected from him and that he has been found guilty. It is further contended that the trial has commenced, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

5. Arguments heard, record perused.

6. The injury attributed to the petitioner indicates that the petitioner fired upon the legs of the injured Shahbaz alias Sabi, which is not corroborated with the M.L.R. The co-accused of the petitioner namely Sarfraz, who was also attributed the role of causing fire-arm injury to the injured has been declared innocent during the investigation; therefore, the case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry. Moreover, the injury is on the non-vital part of the body of the injured Shahbaz. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about 11 months and no more required for further investigation, therefore, further detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. Although the challan has been submitted but the trial is not progressing. 6A. Relying upon the cases of Muhammad Umer v. The State (PLD 2004 SC 477), Raham Hussain v. The State and another (2008 YLR 1064) and Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2007 YLR 515), this bail application is allowed subject to petitioner's furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-562/L Bail allowed.