1984 PLP 1282 (MLD)
RIAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1282 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | RIAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1282 (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 1984 PLP 1282 (MLD)?
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: 1984 PLP 1282 (MLD) (RIAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad Gujar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307 & 325--Bail, grant of- Petitioner attributed a grievous head injury, having been caused from wrong side of hatchet and no further blow caused to victim of assault- Petitioner in jail for about 4 months--Bail allowed, in circumstances. Begum Surrya Irshad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307 & 325--Bail, grant of- Petitioner attributed a grievous head injury, having been caused from wrong side of hatchet and no further blow caused to victim of assault- Petitioner in jail for about 4 months--Bail allowed, in circumstances. Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad Gujar for Petitioner. Begum Surrya Irshad for the State. Riaz petitioner is involved in a case under sections 147, 148, 307, 323 and 325, P.P.C. He has moved this petition for bail. 2. The F.I.R. version is that on 14-2-1984 at about noon time, the petitioner armed with hatchet and his co-accused armed with Sotas caused injuries to Amir, Manzur and Safdar P.Ws. The part attributed to the petitioner is that he gave one hatchet blow from the wrong side to Amir P.W. hitting his right ear and one blow from the same side to Manzur hitting his head. The remaining accused caused injuries to Safdar and afore-mentioned Amir and Manzoor. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that from the facts and circumstances of the case the intention to kill cannot be inferred. It is submitted that if the accused party wanted to kill the injured P.Ws. nothing could prevent them because according to the prosecution the members of the complainant party were not in a position to offer any resistance. Learned counsel further submits that the accused party had nothing to do with the pre-emption suit and the motive alleged in the F.I.R. is false. 4. I have gone through the relevant material. The petitioner is alleged to have given one hatchet blow from wrong side to Manzur P.W. and one blow from the same side to Amir P.W. All the injuries on the person of Manzur were simple in nature. Amir P.W. had five visible injuries, out of injury No.1 on the head was declared grievous. This injury is attributed to the petitioner. However, the petitioner used the hatchet from the wrong side and did not cause any further blow to Amir P.W. He is in jail since 28th February 1984. In the circumstances, I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Bhalwal. S.G.D. Bail granted.