1988 PLP 1747 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ILYAS and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1747 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ILYAS and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑, (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1747 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑, (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1747 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1747 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ILYAS and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Qadri for Petitioners
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307, 325, 148 & 149‑‑Bail‑‑Blow attributed to one accused was not found in the medico‑legal report while injuries attributed to other accused were not found on person of prosecution witness‑ Accused admitted to bail in circumstances. ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307, 325, 148 & 149‑‑Bail‑‑Injury attributed to accused was found on person of injured prosecution witness which was on vital part of the body‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. Ishfaq Bokhari for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Ishaque petitioners are charged for murderously assaulting Shaukat Ali on 26‑7‑1988 with a hatchet, iron bar Sua and Danda. The injured was medically examined and five injuries were found on his person, out of which one was grievous.
2. It is stated that the alleged grievous injury is not attributed to the petitioners and further that there is a ~r‑lay of 13 days in the F.I.R. The medical examination was conducted five days after 'he alleged occurrence. The grievous injury is not alleged to have been inflicted by any of the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant have opposed the application. According to them the complainant had firstly applied to the Commanding Officer of his Unit for directing the police to register a case and, therefore, delay took place in lodging the F.I.R. It is further stated that he was initially admitted in C.M.H. and after discharge from there got the M.L.R. It is next contended that co‑accused of the petitioners are still at large and as such the petitioners who are desperate persons are not entitled to bail.
4. Although Muhammad Ilyas petitioner is alleged to have inflicted Danda blow on the forehead of Shaukat but in the medico‑legal report no injury was found on his forthead. Muhammad Ramzan petitioner is alleged to have caused three sun blows to the injured P.W. but no stab or piercing wound was found on his person. In this view of the matter as also the other circumstances narrated above I admit Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Ramzan to bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. City/Duty Magistrate, Lahore. However, Muhammad Ishaque petitioner is not considered entitled to bail because the injury attributed to him was actually found on the person of the injured P.W. and was on a vital part of the body. Accordingly, his plea for bail is not accepted and his application is dismissed. M A.K./M‑976/L Order accordingly.