1997 PLP 2748 (MLD)
SABIR KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997 PLP 2748 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Muhammad Zubair, J |
| Parties | SABIR KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 2748 (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 1997 PLP 2748 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Muhammad Zubair, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 2748 (MLD) (SABIR KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/ 109‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused was named in the F.I.R. with the allegation of having caused a fire‑arm injury on the abdomen of the complainant on account of enmity‑‑‑Case of accused fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. in view of the provisions of S. 324, P.P.C. read with S. 337‑D, P.P.C.‑‑‑Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. Imtiaz Ahmad Ch. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Imtiaz Ahmad Ch. for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1994. The petitioner who is involved in a case under section 324 read with 109, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.704 of 1993, dated 20‑12‑1993, registered at Police Station Mughalpura, Lahore seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner as per F.I.R. is that he fired at the victim with his rifle which hit him on his belly.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the offence against the petitioner, at the most, may fall under section 337‑F(iii), P.P.C. which is punishable for three years, hence the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and he is entitled to bail. In addition to that, he submitted that the medical report belies the prosecution version, and the petitioner is behind the bars since 20‑12‑1993 without any progress in the trial, on this score also, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer has opposed this bail application.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The petitioner is a nominated accused and the allegation against the petitioner is that he caused firearm injury on the abdomen of the complainant who is an M.P.A., on account of the enmity mentioned in the F.I.R. itself. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not well‑founded in view of the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. read with section 337‑D, P.P.C., The case of the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause, so the petitioner is not entitled to bail. This petition stands dismissed. N.H.Q./S‑457/L Bail refused.