1994 PLP 1523 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE —
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1523 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), THE STATE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1523 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), THE STATE as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1523 (MLD)?
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: 1994 PLP 1523 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yusuf Ali Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34
Accused had allegedly fired with his gun at the exhortation of his father which hit on the legs of the injured witness
Accused at the time of his arrest had taken up the stand before the police to have acted in self-defence at the time of occurrence which seemed to be plausible
Case against accused, therefore was one of further inquiry
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner who is involved in a case under section 324/34, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. NO-109 of 1993, dated 3-9-1993, registered at Police Station Wan Bhachran, District Mianwali, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that he at the exhortation of his father fired with his .12 bore gun which hit on the legs of Ghulam Muhammad. 3. - The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant party attacked the petitioner and his father when they were doing their job on the brick-kiln and if any injury is caused to the injured P.W. that too was caused in self-defence by the petitioner who had a licensed gun with him. The injuries are on the non-vital part of the body of the injured P.W. and the petitioner never intended to commit Qatl-e-Amd, only he wanted to scare of the complainant party, which was aggressor party. The challan has been submitted in Court but yet no person has been examined as witness in this case. In the presence of the material referred to above, the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry as it would be determined after the recording of some evidence whether actually the petitioner acted in self -defence or he caused injuries as mentioned in the F.I.R. hence he is entitled to the grant of bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer, has opposed this bail application on the ground that the petitioner while armed with gun has caused injuries on the legs of the injured P.W. which has caused extensive damage to his legs.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner has taken up this defence before the Police when he was arrested on 21-10-1993 that he acted in self-defence. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner alongwith his father was doing some brick-kiln job in their own land which was in their possession, mere assertion of the complainant party that. the land belongs to him, would not give him any right to take away the possession of the land without having s recourse to law, hence the defence version seems to be plausible, so the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry. The petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C., Mianwali. N.H.Q./M-1534/L Bail allowed,