2002 PLP 3569 (YLR)
MUNAWAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 3569 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Muhammad Sabir, J |
| Parties | MUNAWAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3569 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 3569 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Muhammad Sabir, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3569 (YLR) (MUNAWAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Ali Chohan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337‑A(ii), 337(v) & 452/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Victim had not received any injury on his right eye according to Medico‑Legal Report and injury on forehead attributed to accused had not fractured any bone of victim‑‑ Offence alleged against accused did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C‑‑ Accused was in jail for the last about nine months and his co‑accused having similar role, had already been granted bail‑‑ Complete challan had not been submitted and conclusion of trial was likely, to take considerable long period‑‑‑Accused was admitted ‑ to bail, in circumstances. Jamil Ahmad Chohan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Arshad Ali Chohan for Petitioner. Jamil Ahmad Chohan for the State. Date of hearing: 2nd April, 2002. Petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.314 of 2001 dated. 3‑6‑2001 registered under sections 337‑A(ii), 337‑F(v), 452/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Noor Shah District, Shaiwal.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith the co‑accused Yasin and Shaban launched attack on Khan Muhammad. He has caused one hatchet injury on the head of Khan Muhammad and another handle below on his right eye.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the medical report does not corroborate the allegations of the complainant. He further submits that Shaban co‑accused with similar allegation has been granted bail by this Court on 11‑2‑2002 therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of bail.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail.
5. Heard. Record perused. Khan Muhammad has not received any injury on the right eye according to the Medico Legal Report. The injury on forehead attributed to the petitioner has not fractured any bone of the victim. The offence alleged against the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is in jail for the last about nine months. His co‑accused having similar role, has already been granted bail by this Court. The complete challan has not been submitted so far. The conclusion of the trial likely to take considerable long period. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000. (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M‑1429/L Bail granted.