1986 P (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujadid Miraa, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ghulam Mujadid Miraa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Asghar Rokhari for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th June, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 325/342/34‑‑Bail‑‑Co‑accused already granted bail‑‑Only two injuries with Danda attributed to accused and same also not on vital part of injured‑‑Bail granted. Farooq Bedar, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 325/342/34‑‑Bail‑‑Co‑accused already granted bail‑‑Only two injuries with Danda attributed to accused and same also not on vital part of injured‑‑Bail granted. Muhammad Asghar Rokhari for Petitioner. Farooq Bedar, A.A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 7th June, 1986. The petitioner, alongwith another, is involved in a case under section 325/342 read with section 34, P.P.C. The petitioner and his co‑accused, after their arrest, applied for bail. The co‑accused was granted bail while the application of the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, this petition. The allegation against the petitioner is that while armed with Danda he caused two injuries to Muhammad Ramzan one each on his shoulder and hand. Thereafter, the injured and the complainant were kept in illegal confinement. The injury on the hand was found to be grievous one. Since the co‑accused of the petitioner has already been granted bail and only two injuries with Danda are attributed to the petitioner and those are not on vital part, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 (twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Mianwali. M. Y. H. Bail granted.