2003 P Cr (PLP)
ATHAR and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ATHAR and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 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: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (ATHAR and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sahibzada Farooq Ali Khan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/34
Bail, grant of-- Further inquiry
Allegation against accused persons was that they alongwith their co-accused had administered some poisonous material to the deceased which resulted into his death
No direct evidence was available against the accused persons that they had administered any such poisonous material to deceased, which resulted into his death
No motive was ascribed to accused and they in investigation by S.H.O. and D.S.P., had been found innocent and were left at the mercy of the Court
All such facts had made the case of accused persons as one of further inquiry into their guilt which was covered under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Arshad Ali for the State. Petitioners Athar and Javed alias Mamda through the instant petition seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.263, dated 17-11-2002, registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. with Police Station Qureshi, District Lodhran.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 16-11-2002 at about 4-30 p.m. Athar, Javed alias Mamda and Muhammad Akmal in furtherance of their common intention have administered some poisonous substance to Muhammad Safdar, 13/14 old, the brother of the complainant, who died as a result of the same. The motive behind the occurrence is that Akmal was on friendly terms with the deceased, who cut of the same with him and instead developed with one Muhammad Wasaq. The same was felt by Muhammad Akmal, who alongwith others had committed his murder.
3. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in; that there is no direct evidence on the record against them that they had administered any poisonous matter to the deceased; that no motive for the murder of the deceased is ascribed to them; that no incriminating article was recovered from them; that during the investigation, it has been found that they are innocent and have nothing to do with the murder of the deceased and that is why they have been left to the mercy of the Court; and that they are behind the bars and previous non-convicts.
4. Conversely, learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; that they as per material available on record in furtherance of their common intention have administered some poisonous matter to the deceased, who died as consequence of the same.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both sides with the help of available record.
6. Allegedly, they alongwith their co-accused Muhammad Akmal had administered some poisonous matter to the deceased, which resulted into his death. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence against them that they had administered any such poisonous matter to the deceased, which resulted into his death. The motive is also not ascribed to them. Admittedly, they in the investigation by S.H.O. and the D.S.P. concerned have been found innocent and left to the mercy of the Court. All these facts make their case essentially as one of further inquiry into their guilt and the same therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. They are behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convicts. In these circumstances, I accept this petition and admit them to bail provided they furnish bail Bonds in the sum of Rs.1.00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran/trial Court. H.B.T./A-822/L Bail granted.