1994 P Cr (PLP)
FAYYAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAYYAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (FAYYAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Raza Hussain Naqvi for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/324/511/411/148/149/ 365/379
Accused was armed and had fired at a witness causing him simple injury
Accused, in case of compromise, could move the Trial Court for appropriate order
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, J.
Fayyaz Ahmad petitioner seeks bail in a case registered with Police Station Wazirabad, District Gujranwala vide F.I.R., dated 4-1-1992 for offences under section 302/324, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and 511/411/148/149/365/379, P.P.C. The petitioner had applied for bail earlier as well, which was dismissed by this Court on 15-5-1993. This is second application seeking bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case against the petitioner was registered on 4-1-1992 and since then he is behind the bars, yet the trial has not commenced. Submits that there is no likelihood of the commencement of the trial in the near future because one of the co-accused has filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking transfer of the case. Argued that the role ascribed to the petitioner is that he fired at a P.W. causing him simple hurt. Now there has been a compromise and the said injured witness has forgiven the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State opposed the contentions.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the file. The petitioner was armed and had fired at a witness causing him simple injury. As far as the question of compromise is concerned, the petitioner may A move an application before the trial Court who shall record the same and pass an appropriate order on it. No ground for bail at this stage is made out. The petition fails, which is dismissed. N.H.Q./F-166/L Bail refused.