Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2005 MLD 902

ABDUL RAZZAQ and others vs THE STATE

Citation2005 MLD 902
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No.837-B of 2004/BWP,
Date2004-09-27
Judge(s)Muhammad Farrukh Mehmood
ResultAd interim bail confirmed.

ORDER

' As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner Abdul Razzaq petitioner has been arrested in some other case. This application has become infructuous to his extent. Disposed of to his extent.

2. Abdul Rasheed and Habib-ur-Rehman petitioners have sought their pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R.

No.329, registered at Police Station Atradpur on 19-11-2002 for offences under sections 324/337- A(iii)/ 148/149, P.P.C.

3. The relevant facts per F.I.R. Are; that a quarrel ensued over right of way between the complainant party and the accused. Thereafter, according to F.I.R., 13 accused who were armed with different weapons launched assault on the complainant party and caused injury to Luqman complainant and P.Ws. Faqir Ullah and Siddique. The allegation against Habib-ur-Rehman petitioner is that he was present at the scene of occurrence while armed with a gun while the allegation against Abdul Rasheed petitioner is that he caused injury with hatchet on the person of Faqir Ullah, P.W.

40. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. It has been noticed that admittedly the petitioners have joined the investigation of the case; it is a case of two versions; cross-version was registered on the statement of Ghulam Mohyud-Din co-accused for offences under sections 324/336/ 148/149/337-A(iii), P.P.C. Five persons namely Habib-ur-Rehman petitioner, Abdul Hayee, Ghulam Fareed, Manzoor Ahmad and Ghulam Mohy- ud-Din received injuries at the hands of the complainant party. The injuries caused to the accused have been suppressed in the F.I.R.; no overt act is attributed to Habib-ur-Rehman petitioner while the injury attributed to Abdul Rasheed petitioner is simple in nature and has been caused by a blunt weapon. In the circumstances, I am inclined to confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order dated 19-7-2004 subject to their furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within two weeks.

Ad interim .

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch