1986 P Cr (PLP)
AKRA alias TASHFEEN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | AKRA alias TASHFEEN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (AKRA alias TASHFEEN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th January, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑--S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 148/452/307/324 & 323/149‑ Bail, grant of‑‑Fire‑arm injury attributed to accused was simple in nature and on non‑vital part‑‑All other co‑accused already released on bail‑‑Case for bail, held, made out‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. Muhammad Iqbal for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner. Muhammad Iqbal for the State. Date of hearing: 29th January, 1986. Akra alias Tashfeen petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and others under sections 148/452/307/ 324 and 323/149 of the P.P.C. During the occurrence which took place on 2‑12‑1985 at 12‑15 in the night two persons namely Muhammad Aslam complainant and his brother Muhammad Akram suffered injuries at the hands of the accused persons. The part attributed to the petitioner is that he fired his gun hitting Muhammad Aslam complainant on his right buttock.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the injury attributed to the petitioner has been declared simple in nature and all his co‑accused have already been released on bail, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession.
3. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.
4. I have gone through the relevant material and given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The medico‑legal report of Muhammad Aslam shows that the fire‑arm injury was simple in nature and on non‑vital part. In the a case for the enlargement of the petitioner is made I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Rs. ten thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Chunian. H.A.K. Bail allowed.