P L D 1994 Peshawar 92 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GUL MUHAMMAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1994 Peshawar 92 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GUL MUHAMMAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1994 Peshawar 92 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1994 Peshawar 92 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1994 Peshawar 92 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GUL MUHAMMAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Allauddin for Petitioner.
- Imdad Hussain for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑ Accused had caused simple injuries to the victim the punishment whereof did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Use of pistol by the accused was yet to be determined at the trial in view of non‑recovery of any empty from the spot‑‑‑Discretion having been properly exercised by Court in favour of accused called for no interference‑‑‑Cancellation of bail granted to accused was declined accordingly. Fazal Elahi Khan for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Imdad Hussain for Respondents. Fazal Elahi Khan for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 5th January, 1994. Muhammad Zahoor petitioner has sought the cancellation of bail granted to three respondents Gul Muhammad, Abdul Qayvum and Khan Muhammad in a case of attempted murder that arises out of F.I.R. No.423 dated 8‑6‑1993 of P.S. Bhana Mari, Peshawar. The charge is affiliated with common intention.
2. While hearing in motion and having applied his mind, the Honourable Mr. Justice Mahboob Ali Khan on 14‑9‑1993 came to the conclusion that there was prima facie no case of cancellation of bail against Gul Muhammad and Abdul Qayyum and hence the notice was issued to Khan Muhammad alone Counsel for the parties and Law Officer on behalf of the State heard.
3. The factum of firing is attributed to the respondent Khan Muhammad who on 23‑8‑1993 was allowed bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar on the ground that the injury caused by the act was simple in nature and hence the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. The amended law of attempted murder now defined by section 324, P.P.C. has undergone a visible change. Previously an attempt at life, when effective, used to entail larger punishment but now it is provided that during such attempt at life if hurt is caused to any person by such act the offender shall be liable to the punishment provided for the hurt caused. The section does not provide that the punishment for hurt shall be in addition to the punishment for the attempt at life but would be a punishment for the hurt alone if caused. There is a logic behind the new amendment, in that, the intention of a person can better be calculated from the physical consequences of his act rather than looking for various means that are not tangible.
5. Looked from such point of view, the act of the accused‑respondent has caused simple injuries to the victim the punishment whereof does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. particularly when the use of pistol itself is yet to be determined at trial in view of non‑recovery of any empty from the spot. In the circumstances, the discretion seems to have been property exercised by the lower Courts that calls for no interference. The cancellation of bail is, therefore, declined. N.H.Q./1520/P Petition dismissed.