1977 PLP 449 (SCMR)
MANSHA KHAN AND 2 Others‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1977 PLP 449 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Haleem, JJ |
| Parties | MANSHA KHAN 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 1977 PLP 449 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 449 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Haleem, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 449 (SCMR) (MANSHA KHAN AND 2 Others‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Mahmood Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Noor Ahmed Noori, Advocate-on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 9th June 1977.
- Riaz Ahmad Shaikh, Assistant Advocate‑General (Punjab) instructed by Ijaz Ali Sheikh, Advocate on‑Record for the State.
- An offence under section 325, P. P. C. is punishable with seven years' rigorous imprisonment and is not one of those in which bail is refused by reason of the prohibition contained in section 437, Cr. P. C. Therefore bail should not be refused merely because the offence is non‑Bailable. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General opposed the bail on the same consideration on which the Courts below have not exercised their discretion. However, in the absence of any strong reason to refuse bail, we feel that the Courts below have not properly exercised their discretion in refusing bail on the basis of the number of injuries suffered by Lal Hussain. Accordingly, we would allow bail to the appellants. They are directed to furnish bond in the sum of RA. 5,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illqa Magistrate.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. dated the 29th April 1977. In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1243/B of 1977‑Arising out of P. S. L. A. No. 58‑R of 1977). ‑‑ S. 497 read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 325‑Grievous hurt‑Bail‑Offence under S. 325, P. P. C. being punishable with 7 years' R. I. not one of such offences where bail refused by reason of prohibition contained in S. 497, Cr. P. C.‑Bail in such case, hence, not to be refused merely because of offence being non‑bailable‑ Any strong reason being absent to refuse bail, Courts below, held, not properly exercised their discretion in refusing bail on basis of number of injuries suffered by victim of attack. Riaz Ahmad Shaikh, Assistant Advocate‑General (Punjab) instructed by Ijaz Ali Sheikh, Advocate on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.‑After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we decided to convert this petition into an appeal and to dispose it of as such. A case was registered at 7 p.m. on 8‑3‑1977 at Police Station Sohawa, District Jhelum, against the appellants under section 325, P. P. C. read with section 34 for having caused sots blows to Lal Hussian on 4‑3‑1977 as a result of which he suffered as many as 16 injuries out of which three were grievous, in the area of Dhok Mirza about seven miles from the Police Static. The appellants were arrested on 16‑3‑1977. They moved the Sessions Judge for bail but the application was rejected solely on the considera tion of the nature of the injuries received by Lal Hussain. The motive alleged was that Zulfiqar, a sort‑in‑law of injured Lal Hussain was suspected of having illicit intimacy with the sister of appellant Mansha Khan and since he proceeded to England, as he feared an attack on his life, the appellants avenged their grievance by causing injuries to Lal Hussain. It cannot be denied that Mansha Khan was an aggrieved person but that could not be a factor to absolve him from his culpability. However, it will be a consideration while considering the question of bail. An offence under section 325, P. P. C. is punishable with seven years' rigorous imprisonment and is not one of those in which bail is refused by reason of the prohibition contained in section 437, Cr. P. C. Therefore bail should not be refused merely because the offence is non‑Bailable. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General opposed the bail on the same consideration on which the Courts below have not exercised their discretion. However, in the absence of any strong reason to refuse bail, we feel that the Courts below have not properly exercised their discretion in refusing bail on the basis of the number of injuries suffered by Lal Hussain. Accordingly, we would allow bail to the appellants. They are directed to furnish bond in the sum of RA. 5,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illqa Magistrate. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.