1995 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL ABDULSATTAR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, J |
| Parties | ABDUL ABDULSATTAR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL ABDULSATTAR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337‑F(ii) & (vi)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Offence allegedly committed by the accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr. P.C.‑‑‑Despite there being a fracture, withholding of bail would amount to punish the accused before finding him guilty of the commission of the offence‑‑‑Accused was released on bail accordingly. Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, A.A.‑G. for the State. Abdul Sattar petitioner, an accused in a case under section 337‑F(ii) (vi) registered against him with Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal has moved this application for grarqt of post‑arrest bail, after refusal of the same by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal.
2. Lal Din father of the petitioner and Abdul Latif injured exchanged hot words with each other over the matter of causing damage to Barseem crop of Abdul Latif. The petitioner armed with Sota raising Lalkara caused injuries to Abdul Latif. 3‑ The petitioner on the sixth day of his arrest was allowed bail by learned Magistrate 1st Class, Sahiwal vide order, dated 31‑3‑1993, which was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide order, dated 15‑2‑1994.
4. Bail is urged on the ground that maximum sentence provided for the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner being three years and seven years not falling within the prohibitory clause, the withholding of bail on the ground that it was granted shortly after the arrest was not justified.
5. The grant of bail has been opposed by the learned State counsel on the ground that bail in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P.C. cannot be claimed as of right.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides at length and perused the record.
7. Abdul Latif sustain4thvo injuries with blunt weapon and as per X‑ray report, there was a fracture of fifth meta carpal bone. The maximum punishment for an offence under section 337‑F(ii) and (vi) provided is two years and seven years ,respectively, in addition to the punishment of Daman, which may or may not be imposed by the Court at the time of recording conviction in a case. Hence despite there being a fracture, withholding of bail shall amount to punish a person before finding him guilty of the commission of an offence. Having regard to the facts of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 8 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sahiwal. N.H.Q/A‑678/L Bail allowed.