2006 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NADEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NADEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 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 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NADEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassan Akhtar Chaudhry for Petitioner. Shahid Nasim for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 109 & 34
No fatal damage was caused to the victim as fire shot attributed to accused had hit the left calf of complainant, whereas fire shots made by unknown accused had only pierced through clothing of complainant and his companion
In view of allegation and damage allegedly caused by accused, applicability of S.324, P.P.C., called for further probe within the meaning of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
M. BILAL KHAN, J.
Muhammad Nadeem son of Khurshid Ahmad, the petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.232 of 2005 registered at Police Station Shah Gharib, District Narowal, for offences under sections 324, 109/34, P.P.C.
2. The allegation in the F.I.R. as narrated by the complainant, was that the petitioner who was holding a pistol and his unknown co-accused who was armed with two pistols assaulted the complainant; one shot fired by the petitioner hit on the calf of his left leg and went through and through; the unknown co-accused fired with his pistols, however, the bullets only hit the wearing apparel of the complainant of Ehsan-ul-Haq his companion; the complainant also fired in his defence with his pistol causing the assailants to run away. The motive according to the complainant was the previous enmity between the parties. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. had been recorded.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 9-12-2005 and is in custody ever since. His application for post-arrest bail was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shakargarh, District Narowal vide order, dated 3-2-2006. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard Mr. Hassan Akhtar Chaudhry, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Shahid Nasim, the learned State Counsel and have perused the record brought by Muhammad Baqir S.-I.
5. A plain look at the F.I.R. would show that the petitioner and his co-accused had taken pains to ensure that no fatal damage was caused to the victim. The fire shot attributed to the petitioner had hit the left calf of the complainant whereas the fire shots made by the unknown accused person had only pierced through the clothing of the complainant and his companion. In view of the allegation and the damage allegedly caused by the petitioner/accused the applicability of section 324, P.P.C. calls for further probe within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-315/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.