| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 5535 2025 SLD 5535 = 2025 YLR 1825 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. Misc. No. 41400-B of 2024, decided on 2nd October, 2024.
Before Shehram Sarwar Ch., J
Barrister Abdul Qudoos Sohal along with Petitioners. Ms. Noshe Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Tahir, Inspector with record for the State. Mian Muhammad Mudassar Bodla for the Complainant.
Crl. Misc. No. 41400-B of 2024, decided on 2nd October, 2024.
Before Shehram Sarwar Ch., J
Barrister Abdul Qudoos Sohal along with Petitioners. Ms. Noshe Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Tahir, Inspector with record for the State. Mian Muhammad Mudassar Bodla for the Complainant.
MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ and others---Petitioners
VERSUS
The STATE and another---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 498,497
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 294,452,427,337A(i),337A(ii),33F(i),337L(2),148,149
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 295, 452, 427, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Religious desecration and insults to religious beliefs, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, mischief causing damage of fifty rupees or more, shajjah-i-khafifah, shajjah-imudihah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Mala fide on the part of complainant---Allegation against the petitioners was that they along with their co-accused while armed with their respective weapons entered into a Masjid (mosque), used derogatory remarks and caused injuries to the complainant party---All the offences except Ss. 452 & 337-A(ii) P.P.C were bailable---Injury declared under S.337-A(ii), P.P.C on the head of the complainant, was jointly attributed to two petitioners and the police file was silent in that regard as to who caused the said injury---Question whether the provisions of S.452, P.P.C were attracted against the petitioners or not would be answered by the Trial Court after recording of evidence---Petitioners were not involved in any other case of such like nature---No useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars---Liberty of a person is aprecious right which has been guaranteed by the Constitution---Court could even look into and evaluate the mala fide (of complainant) from the facts and circumstances of the case, which apparently was oozing in the present case--Mala fide on the part of the complainant for false implication of the petitioners could not be ruled out---Petition was allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioners was confirmed, in circumstances.Ajmal Khan v. Liaqat Hayat and another PLD 1998 SC 97 and Syed Muhammad Firdaus and others v. The State 2005 SCMR 784 rel.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 497 & 498---Bail order---Observations of Court---Scope---Observations made in a bail order are purely tentative in nature and relevant only for the disposal ofโฆ