2001 PLP 2234(1) (YLR)
ARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2234(1) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | ARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2234(1) (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2234(1) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2234(1) (YLR) (ARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazar Abbas Syed for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Allegation against the accused that he armed with Danda had inflicted Danda. blow on the left arm of the deceased, did not find support from the medical evidence‑‑‑Recovery of Danda had not been effected from the accused‑‑ Complainant could not rebut the submission and conceded that no blunt injury had been received by the deceased and it was also conceded that no recovery of Danda was effected from the accused‑‑‑Case against the accused being open to further inquiry, the accused was admitted to bail. Mansoor Ahmad Mian for the State Sardar M Ramzan for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner is accused of an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. vide F. I. R. No. 126 of 2000 registered with Police Station, Kandiwal, District Jhang. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was armed with Danda and inflicted Danda blow on left arm of the deceased. According to the learned counsel the allegation does not find support from the medical evidence, as the deceased did not receive any blunt weapon injury on his person. Further submits that no recovery of any Danda has been effected from the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant could not rebut the submission and concedes that no blunt weapon injury has been received by the deceased. It is also conceded that no recovery of Danda was effected from him. In view of these facts, I am of the view that case against. the petitioner is open to further enquiry. He is, therefore, admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot. H.B.T./A‑296/L Bail granted.