YLR 2008

2008 PLP 2925 (YLR)

NASEER AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6172/B of 2008, decided on 7th August, 2008.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 PLP 2925 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, J
Parties NASEER AHMED — 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 2008 PLP 2925 (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 2008 PLP 2925 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 2925 (YLR) (NASEER AHMED — 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

  • Akhtar Ali Noshahi for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S.497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/148/149

Bail, grant of

Fire arm injuries, according to prosecution, were attributed to three real brothers of the accused on the victims

Accused was alleged to have made only ineffective aerial firing with his pistol, which was not recovered from him

No incriminating evidence was present on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence

Mere nomination of accused in the F.I.R. and possibility of his being present at the time of occurrence were not sufficient grounds for refusing him bail, particularly when challan had already been submitted in the Court and he was no more required by police for investigation

Case against accused also fell within the ambit of further inquiry

Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. Muhammad Zaman and others v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 1514 ref. Shahid Jameel for the Complainant. Ch. Jamshed Hussain, D.P.G. Mehmood, S.-I. with record.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BHATTI, J.

Naseer Ahmad, the petitioner is involved in criminal case F.I.R. No. 669 dated 30-12-2007 registered at Police Station Narang District, Sheikhupura under sections 302/324/ 148/149 P.P.0 at the instance of Zulifqar Ahmad complainant with the allegation that the present petitioner along with other co-accused forming unlawful assembly committed offence of rioting and murdered Nazir Ahmad besides injuring Shaukat Ali and Karamat Ali. Allegedly, the petitioner also caused straight firing while participating in the occurrence.

2. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has opposed this bail petition.

3. Heard. Record perused.

4. According to the prosecution story firearm injuries upon the persons of Nazir Ahmad and Karamat Ali are attributed to Dabeer Ahmad, Tanveer Ahmad and Naveed Ahmad co-accused. The role attributed to the present petitioner, who is real brother of the aforesaid co-accused, is that of Ariel/ineffective firing with his pistol, which has admittedly not been recovered from him. It is also not denied that no empties were recovered from the spot despite the fact that the police arrived at the spot immediately after the report made to it just within two hours of the occurrence and so, at the most his presence at the time of occurrence may not be ruled out and that too empty handed as per the I.O. of the case. No other incriminating evidence is also available on record to connect him with the commission of offence. Therefore his mere nomination in the F.I.R. and possibility of his presence at the time of occurrence should not come in his way to seeking concession of bail when he is already behind the bars since 4-3-2008 and is no more required by the police for further investigation. In this case statedly, challan has only been submitted to the Court concerned and the trial has yet to commence. So, therefore, it would not be of any use to keep the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period.

5. In view of the above and following the dictum, laid down in Muhammad Zaman and others v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 1514 the petitioner's case falls within the ambit of further inquiry. Resultantly, the petition in hand is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum on Rs.1,00.000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./N-42/L Bail allowed.