Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 986 2002 SLD 986 2002 PCRLJ 744
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1349 B of 2000/BWP and Criminal Miscellaneous No.84 B of 2001, decided on 8th July, 2001.
TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, J
Mian Muhammad Afzal Wattoo for Petitioners. Abdul Sattar Zafar for the Complainant. Mirza Nadeem Asif for the State.

AHMAD and 13 others

VS

THE STATE --Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302/324/148/149/337/430/380/114

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) -- S. 497 Penal Code (XLV of 1860), SS.302/324/148/149/337/ 430/380/114 Bail, grant of F.I.R. was promptly lodged Specific role was attributed to each of the accused persons who were armed with deadly weapons and took part in the occurrence in which one person was murdered and nine prosecution witnesses were injured Accused persons were found involved in the offence in three investigations Case fell within the prohibitory clause of 5.497, Cr.P.C. Bail was declined in circumstances. Mian Muhammad Afzal Wattoo for Petitioners. Abdul Sattar Zafar for the Complainant. Mirza Nadeem Asif for the State. ORDER This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1349 B of 2000/BWP and Criminal Miscellaneous No.84 B of 2001/BWP as both bail applications arise out of the same F.I.R. 2. Iftikhar Ahmad and 13 others in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1349 B of 2000 and Ghulam Rasheed and four others in Criminal Miscellaneous No.84 B of 2001 seek post arrest bail in case bearing F. I. R. No. 162 of 2000 registered at Police Station Saddar, Bahawalnagar under sections 302/324/148/149/337/430/380/114, P.P.C. in which all the petitioners are nominated. 3. The occurrence took place at 4 15 p.m. on 17 7 2000. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged at 6 00 p.m. on the same day. The allegations against the petitioners are that they alongwith their co ¬accused armed with deadly weapons, in pursuance of a common objective committed Qatl i Amd of the son of the complainant and also caused injuries to as many as 9 P.Ws. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this was a case of cross version; that the accused party also received injuries at the hands of the complainant party; that most of the injuries attributed to the accused party are not supported by the Medico legal Report; that it is not a case of vicarious liability and in the present case, the individual role of every petitioner/accused can be looked into at the bail stage; that no injury was caused to the deceased which could be attributed to the petitioners;, that the injuries declared are simple in nature and that from the facts and circumstances of the case, the case was of one of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492