1976 P Cr (PLP)
SHAH ALI AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1976 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, J |
| Parties | SHAH ALI AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 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 1976 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 P Cr (PLP) (SHAH ALI AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Muhammad Dastgir for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 498‑Bail‑Cross‑cases‑First information report against petitioners lodged with 4 days' delay‑Possibility of introducing facts with a view to change nature of offence, existing‑Bails granted, in circumstances‑[Bail]. Aziz Ajmi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 498‑Bail‑Cross‑cases‑First information report against petitioners lodged with 4 days' delay‑Possibility of introducing facts with a view to change nature of offence, existing‑Bails granted, in circumstances‑[Bail]. Qazi Muhammad Dastgir for Petitioners. Aziz Ajmi for the State. This is an application by Syed Shah Ali, Shah Rasool and Mahla under section 498, Cr. P. C. for the grant of bail. They are accused along with three others of offences under sections 118, 325/326/149, P. P. C.
2. The allegations against them are that having armed themselves with dangs and hatchets they attacked the complainant party and caused them injuries, two of which were found to be grievous. The other side also lodged a counter F. I. R. No. 127/73, according to which the complainant party was the aggressor. Three co‑accused of the present petitioners have injuries on their persons. They were however, granted bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan. I noticed that there is a delay of four days in lodging the report against the petitioners with regard to the incident in question. The petitioners' party on the other hand lodged an F. I. R. after as many as 12 days. The explanation of delay of four days in lodging the F. I. R. against the petitioners was that some relatives of the other party intervened and suggested a compromise of the matter through a panchayat. But whatever be the reason of delay, it is quite possible that during this period of four days certain facts are introduced in the story which may change the very nature of the offence. Delay in lodging the F. I. R. usually casts a grave doubt as to the veracity of the details as to the manner in which the incident took place. ' Under these circumstances it can be safely said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are not guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or 10 years' R. I. They are therefore granted bail in the sum of Rs. 8,000 (Rupees eight thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Multan. Petition allowed.