2009 P Cr (PLP)
SIKANDAR HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SIKANDAR HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 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 2009 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2009 P Cr (PLP) (SIKANDAR HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Shahbaz Ali Anjum for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Accused was behind the bars for the last more than three years and not a single witness had been examined so far in the case
Two years and seven months back earlier bail application of accused was dismissed by High Court, but still there was no progress in the trial
Allegation against accused was only of aerial firing and he could not be kept behind the bars for indefinite period
Principal accused, the real brother of accused, was absconding
Each and every individual was responsible for his own act
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.
The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.242, dated 13-8-2004, offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Saddar Sangla Hill, District Nankana Sahib.
2. Briefly allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner armed with pump action .12 bore gun along with his brother Umar Hayat armed with rifle .8 mm came at the spot and started firing. The fire made by Umar Hayat, co-accused with rifle .8 mm hit on front chest of the deceased Umar Hayat alias Soni whereas petitioner along with co-accused made aerial firing. The motive alleged in the F.I.R. is that few days prior to the occurrence Umar Hayat deceased had a dispute with accused which was patched up on the intervention of the respectables of the locality and due to that grudge the accused had committed the occurrence.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 11-7-2005 and is behind the bars for the last about three years and 2 months and the trial has not commenced till today, as only the charge has been framed and not a single witness has been examined. Earlier bail applications filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 3-2-2006 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.9396-B of 2005 but more than two years and seven months has elapsed from the dismissal of earlier petition and there is no progress in the trial. Even otherwise, the only allegation against the petitioner is of aerial firing. In this view of the matter the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite period of time as premature punishment on the ground that principal accused Umar Hayat, real brother of the petitioner is absconding. It is settled proposition of law that each and every individual is responsible for his own act and the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) preached this view in His last address that father is not responsible for the act of his son or daughter whereas the son and daughter are not responsible for the act of his/her father.
5. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./S-100/L Bail allowed.