| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 2680 2018 SLD 2680 2018 PCRLJ 1 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 16784-B of 2016, decision Dated: 11-01-2017.
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Ishnaq Sahou
Respondent(s) by: Irfan Zia, Deputy Prosecutor-General and Ahmad Yar, ASI with record
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 16784-B of 2016, decision Dated: 11-01-2017.
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Ishnaq Sahou
Respondent(s) by: Irfan Zia, Deputy Prosecutor-General and Ahmad Yar, ASI with record
FAREED BAKSH
VS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 148,149,324,337-F(iii)
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-F(iii), 148 & 149---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mutalahimah, rioting armed with deadly weapon, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Case of two versions---Accused petitioner was named in FIR---Facts remained that the injury attributed to the accused petitioner was on right leg and foot of injured and admittedly he had not repeated the fire---Question as to whether provisions of offence under S. 324, P.P.C. were attracted in such a case or not would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence---Remaining offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---During investigation, it had come on the record that accused petitioner was merely present at the spot at the time of occurrence and he did not cause any injury to the injured---Allegations contained in FIR and the facts emerged during the course of investigation, prima facie, the case against the accused petitioner had become a case of two versions; one put by the complainant in FIR and the other came on record during investigation, as to which version was correct and question of sharing common intention and vicarious liability of the accused petitioner would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence---Admittedly accused petitioner was previous non-convict and was behind the bars and no more required for further investigation as the investigation to the extent of accused petitioner had been completed---Nothing had been recovered from the accused petitioner during the course of investigation---No useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused petitioner behind the bars at present stage---Case of accused fell in the ambit of further inquiry covered by S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---Accused was allowed bail accordingly. Ehsan Ullah v. The State 2012 SCMR 1137 and Zaigham Ashraf v. State and others 2016 SCMR 18 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Benefit of doubt could be given to the accused even at bail stage. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.…
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