1997 PLP 2769 (MLD)
SHIRAZ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997 PLP 2769 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Muhammad Zubair, J |
| Parties | SHIRAZ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 2769 (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 1997 PLP 2769 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Muhammad Zubair, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 2769 (MLD) (SHIRAZ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaukat Ali Meher for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 15th June, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Prosecution evidence showed that accused caused two injuries on the person of victim with .30 bore pistol, whereas according to medical evidence, four entry‑wounds of same dimension were on the person of victim which belied prosecution version as it showed that same type of weapons were used for causing those injuries‑‑ Case against accused fell in the second part of 5.324, P.P.C. as none of injuries was so serious as to entail punishment of ten years‑‑‑Accused, was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Nazir Ahmed Ghazi, A.A.G. for the State. Sajjad Haider Gillani for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Nazir Ahmed Ghazi, A.A.G. for the State. Sajjad Haider Gillani for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 15th June, 1994. The petitioner who is involved in a case under section 324/34, P. P. C. arising out of F.I.R. No.322, dated 17‑11‑1993, registered at Police Station Bhalwal, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. The petitioner is alleged to have fired at Malak Dad with a pistol, whereas his co‑accused too fired at the Malak Dad with his .12 bore gun, as a result of which Malak Dad received injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that co‑accused of the petitioner, Nadeem was found innocent; hence the case against the petitioner is also one of further inquiry; as the police has not believed the version given in the F.I.R. itself. He further contended that according to the prosecution evidence the petitioner caused two injuries with .30 bore pistol, whereas according to the medical evidence, there are four entry‑wounds which are of the same dimension i.e. 1 cm x 1 cm, which belies the prosecution version as it shows that same type of weapons were used for causing these injuries and probably these injuries are with pellets and not with bullets as shown in the evidence; hence on this score alone, the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and that case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of section 324, P.P.C. in view of nature of injuries sustained by the injured P.W.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from the Police Officer, has opposed this application on the ground that the petitioner twice opened the fire on the injured P.W. which shows his intention, thus the case against him falls within the ambit of section 324, P.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to deeper appreciation of evidence and this exercise cannot be done at the bail stage. He further submitted that the injured P.W. received injuries with fire‑arm, which clearly makes out a case punishable under section 324, P.P.C.; hence that petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have some weight as the injuries found on the person of the victim are of same dimension which to some extent makes the prosecution case doubtful. In view of the language of section 324, P.P.C. when the injury is caused, then the offender is liable for the injury caused. The case against the petitioner falls in the second part of section 324, P.P.C. as none of the injuries is so serious so as to entail punishment of ten years. In the circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C. Bhalwal. H.B.T./S.434/L Bail granted.