Skip to main content

Ground of Further Inquiry in Pre-Arrest Bail

By
PLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1015
[Multan Bench Multan]
Present: Pervaiz Inayat Malik, J.
MUHAMMAD SAJJAD etc.--Petitioners
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 1271-B of 2009, decided on 22.4.2009.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 148 & 149--Bail before arrest, confirmed--Further inquiry--Enmity exists between the parties--Element of malafide of cross-version--Injuries caused by accused were not visible--Held: Accused had made out a case of further inquiry within the parameters of
S. 497, Cr.P.C. read with S. 498, Cr.P.C.--Bail before arrest was confirmed.  [P. 1016] A & B
Rana Shoukat Hayat Noon, Advocate with Petitioners.
Syed Muhammad Manzoor Shah, Advocate for Complainant
Mian Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Date of hearing: 22.4.2009.
Order
Petitioners Muhammad Sajjad, Muhammad Fayyaz, Muhammad Riaz all sons of Muhammad Nawaz seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 191/2008 dated 19.05.2008 registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad District Multan, for offences under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 148, 149 PPC.
2.  It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sajjad petitioner is the complainant of the case in hand; however, they are seeking bail in cross-version recorded at the instance of accused party which was recorded on 15.02.2009, after about nine months of the registration of original FIR; that they have been involved in the case for ulterior motives; whereas Muhammad Riaz Petitioner No.3 is the complainant in another case FIR No.666/2008 under Section 395 etc registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad District Multan against the accused party and complainant of present cross-version. In the cross-version 14 accused have been implicated out of which eight have been nominated with specific role; whereas these injuries were caused allegedly to the complainant of cross-version/injured PW; Medico legal examination of the complainant of cross-version was conducted on 18.05.2008.
3.  The learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submit that out of fourteen accused only these three petitioners were found guilty. The learned counsel for the complainant adds that no malice and malafide was attributed to the complainant of cross-version and that the petitioners assaulted the complainant of cross-version by committing criminal tress pass in his house and thus not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. In support of his contentions reliance is placed upon 2006 P.Cr.L.J 1798, 2006 P.Cr.L.J 2423, 2007 P.Cr.L.J 615, and 2009 P.Cr.L.J 132.
4.  Arguments heard. Record perused.
5.  Admittedly the present petitioners are complainant of two FIRs registered against accused party/complainant of cross-version. Enmity exists between the parties. Cross-version was recorded after the delay of nine months. The version put forward by the complainant of cross-version qua eleven accused have been found false; the element of malafide of the cross-version cannot be ruled out. Injured PW is present in the Court. I have seen injuries allegedly caused by the petitioners which are not even visible. However, without commenting upon the merits of the case so that it might not prejudice the case of either of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a case of further inquiry within the parameters of Section 497 Cr.P.C., read with Section 498 Cr.P.C.
6.  Consequently ad-interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioners vide order dated 13.04.2009 is hereby confirmed, subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the statistician of the learned trial Court.
7.  Before parting I may observe that the trial Court shall proceed with the trial without being influenced by any observations made in this order, which are tentative in nature & for the purpose of bail only.
(R.A.)      Bail confirmed.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

When an application for restoration of suit is allowed, all interim orders passed prior to dismissal of suit for non-prosecution, stand revived

By
PLJ 2018 Islamabad 276 Present :  Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J. M/s. PANTHER DEVELOPERS--Petitioner versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (ADJ), WEST, ISLAMABAD and 2 others--Respondents W.P. No. 977 of 2018, decided on 10.4.2018. Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (IV of 2001)-- ----S. 17(9)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Execution of lease agreement--Default in payment of rent--Violation of terms and Conditions--Eviction Petition--Dismissed for non prosecution--Application for restoration--Allowed--Tentative order--Struck off right of defence--Eviction Petition allowed--Appeal was dismissed--Determination--Direction to--It is well settled that when a suit is dismissed for non-prosecution, and an application for restoration is filed, Court/Tribunal can, while said application is pending, pass interim orders--It is also well settled that when an application for restoration of suit is allowed, all interim orders passed prior to dismissal of suit for non...
Post a Comment
Read more

Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005

By
PLJ 2018 Lahore 868 [Multan Bench, Multan] Present :  Mujahid Mustaqeem Ahmed, J. MUHAMMAD AMIN--Appellant versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR--Respondent F.A.O. No. 130 of 2016, heard on 5.10.2017. Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005-- ----Ss. 19, 28 & 33--Seed Act, 1976, Ss. 22-B, 22-C, 22-E, 22-D & 23--Purchasing of hybird seed substandard quantity--Issuance of legal notice--Complaint before district consumer Court--Partly allowed--Suffering of Fiscal loss and mental agony--Question of--Whether purchased seed was hybird or substandard--Direction to--Respondent was under legal obligation to get his crop inspected from Obriculturist, Agriculture Officer or any expert of Research Center to obtain expert report/lab report of plants to corroborate his version--Laboratory tests and analysis of such experts are quite helpful   to   determine controversial   issue,   involved in such like cases--It is manifest that a detailed and effective procedure has b...
Post a Comment
Read more

Divorce is not possible during pregnancy

By
A Muslim woman cannot be divorced during pregnancy. If a husband pronounces divorce to his wife during pregnancy, it is immaterial till delivery. However, if after delivery of child, it is not reconciled within 90 days, it becomes divorce. The reason is that the Iddah of a Muslim woman is 90 days after pronouncement of divorce by the husband. If divorce is pronounced to a Muslim wife during pregnancy, it becomes effective automatically after the end of pregnancy. The iddat of such lady starts from that day and if the divorce is not revoked in such time period of 90 days, then it becomes complete divorce. Once a women completes her Iddat after divorce, it means the divorce is final and irrevocable between parties. For  more , you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006
Post a Comment
Read more