1989 PLP 695 (MLD)
GULZAR — Petitioner Versus THE SATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 695 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | GULZAR — Petitioner Versus THE SATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 695 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 695 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 695 (MLD) (GULZAR — Petitioner Versus THE SATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ehtesham Oadir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860) SS.307/148/149--Bail, grant of--Two shots on front of chest would not have been fired by accused who was behind victim of attack--Enmity existing between parties--Accused behind bars for the last six months--Bail allowed in circumstances. Zafar Yaseen for the State
Judgment & Decree
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860) SS.307/148/149--Bail, grant of--Two shots on front of chest would not have been fired by accused who was behind victim of attack--Enmity existing between parties--Accused behind bars for the last six months--Bail allowed in circumstances. Ehtesham Oadir for Petitioner. Zafar Yaseen for the State The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R. in this case is mala fide because on 29th pf September, 1986, the petitioner instituted a private complaint against six persons under the provisions of sections 307, 324 and 149, P.P.C. because the petitioner had received as many as twenty-two injuries in the said incident and the police had refused to register a case. It is further contended that not only the petitioner, his brother had also received injuries in the incident. 2. It is contended that the present F.I.R. against the petitioner has been lodged as a counter-blast to the aforesaid complaint so that a compromise can take place. 3. I have perused the contents of the complaint as well as the F.I.R. The F.I.R. in the present case against the petitioner was lodged by Fazal Din who happens to be the real brother of Slams Din accused No.3 in the complaint. The persual of the F.I.R. against the petitioner shows that the petitioner is alleged to have fired three shots hitting two in the front of the chest and the one at the back of the victim of attack. 4. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the fact that the two shots on the front of chest would not have been fired by the petitioner who was behind the 4tim of attack. It will not be proper at this stage to comment upon the merits of the ease or to give any finding lest it may prejudice either side in the trial Court. A However, in view of the peculiar circumstances and background of the enmity and on account of the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about six months. I would direct that the Pttitaoyer shall be admitted to bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Jhang. M.Y.H./G-197/L Bail granted.