2000 PLP 1368 (YLR)
ABDUL MAJEED alias BHOLA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1368 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam‑uz‑Zaman |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJEED alias BHOLA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1368 (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 2000 PLP 1368 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam‑uz‑Zaman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1368 (YLR) (ABDUL MAJEED alias BHOLA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibraheem‑ Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/436/148/149‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑No specific role had been assigned to accused in the FI.R. and he was only alleged to have made indiscriminate firing at the time of occurrence alongwith other co‑accused‑‑‑Accused was behind the bars for the last more than a year and his trial had not yet concluded‑‑‑Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. Zafar Ullah Khakwani for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Zafar Ullah Khakwani for the State. Petitioner seeks his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.324 of 1997 dated 20‑6‑1997 registered under section 324/436/148/149, P. P. C. at Police Station Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner as alleged in the F.I.R. is that on 20‑6‑1997 at about 3‑00 p.m. the petitioner being armed with double‑barrel gun alongwith his ten other co‑accused who were also allegedly armed with fire arms forcibly entered into the house of the complainant and started firing indiscriminately. Allah Yar, brother of the complainant, received fire‑arm injuries due to this firing. Complainant party also fired in self‑defence and due to this, Muhammad Mushtaq, co‑accused, received injuries. Lastly, accused person put the house of the complainant on fire after sprinkling kerosene oil.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 4‑6‑1997 and trial in the said case has not yet been concluded. Further contends that statutory period provided under the Statute has elapsed, thus, argues that petitioner is entitled to the‑concession of bail. Further argues that in the F.I.R., no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner but general allegation of indiscriminating firing has been attributed to him. Lastly, contends that question of vicarious liability of the petitioner is yet to be determined by the trial Court, hence, case of ‑the petitioner requires further inquiry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of instant case minutely.
6. Bare perusal of F.I.R. does not show any specific role played by the petitioner and the only allegation is that of indiscriminate firing alongwith other co‑accused. We have observed that petitioner was arrested on 4‑9‑1997 and uptil today, trial of the case has not been concluded. Keeping in view the circumstances of this, we are inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. N.H.Q/A‑105/L