1990 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Anwar Shah for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/326/34
Divergent opinions of Medical Officer on point of nature of weapon allegedly used by accused for causing injury and it was yet to be determined as to which of two reports was correct
Alleged injury neither had been declared grievous nor dangerous to life
Judgment & Decree
Syed Muhammad Anwar Shah for Petitioner Abdul Nabi Chaudhry for the State. This is an application for grant of bail to Muhammad Siddique petitioner in a case under section 307/320/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Liaqatpur vide F.I.R. No.198/89.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and 2 others, all armed with fire-arms launched murderous assault and caused injuries to Munir Ahmad complainant. As for the petitioner it has been alleged that he was carrying gun and had fired shot hitting on the head of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail after arrest granted to the petitioner by Civil Judge 1st' Class Magistrate Section 30, Liaqatpur was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan without cogent reasons and that the medical report with regard to the nature of the weapons used for causing injuries found on the person of the complainant, is divergent. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
4. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that the petitioner was arrested and was allowed bail by the learned Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30, on the ground that the injury allegedly caused by the petitioner was found to have been caused by blunt weapon. The bail was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that according to the medical opinion given by the doctor on 10-6-1989, the injury was caused by fire-arm. There are divergent opinions of the Medical Officer on the point of the nature of the weapon used for causing injury and it is yet to be determined as to which of the two reports is correct. Furthermore the injury has neither been declared grievous nor dangerous to life. For what has been said above, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Liaqatpur. H.B.T./M-2083/L Bail granted.