2002 PLP 1117 (MLD)
MANZOOR AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1117 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J |
| Parties | MANZOOR AHMED ‑‑‑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 1117 (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 2002 PLP 1117 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1117 (MLD) (MANZOOR AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 1st November, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337‑F(i); 337‑F(v) & 452/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Medico‑legal Report, prima facie, did not show as to the time when injuries were suffered by alleged victim‑‑‑Offences against accused were not punishable for 10 years or more and in such like cases grant of bail was a rule and refusal was an exception‑‑ Exceptional circumstances viz that injuries were given to a woman were though present in the case but since Medico‑legal Report had created some doubt, accused was admitted to bail. Jamil Ahmed Chohan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Jamil Ahmed Chohan for the State. Date of hearing: 1st November, 2001. The petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.171 of 2001, dated 5‑6‑2001 under sections 337‑F(i), 337‑F(v) and 452/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Burjwala, District Sahiwal.
2. Brief facts of the case as given in the F.I.R. are that on 28‑5‑2001 at about 6‑00 ,a.m. complainant's wife Mst. Sardaran was present in her house when the petitioner alongwith his co‑accused entered the house. The petitioner gave a sota blow on the left arm of Mst: Sardaran while the co‑accused also inflicted a sota blow to her. In the meanwhile P. Ws. were attracted to the spot, who rescued her from the assailants.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the injury attributed to the petitioner was on the non‑vital part of the body; that the petitioner had not repeated any blow; that there is a delay of 8 days in the registration of the case; that the co‑accused has been allowed bail, therefore, on the basis of rule of consistency the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail; that in the M.L.R. the doctor has not given the duration of injuries, therefore, it cannot be ascertained that the injuries were caused at the time alleged in the F.I.R.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From the M.L.R.; prima facie, it cannot be ascertained that when these injuries were suffered by Mst. Sardaran. The offences are not punishable for 10 years or more. In such‑like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. Although there was exceptional circumstances in the said case that the injuries were given to a woman but since the M.L.R. is creating some doubt in my mind, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail in the suin of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M‑1003/L Bail granted.