1994 P Cr (PLP)
M. RIAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | M. RIAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) 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) (M. RIAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Rashid for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337-A(i)(ii)/452
Bail, grant of-- Offence for which the accused was charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C: --Accused was behind the bars for the last three or four months without any substantial progress in the trial
Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337-A(i)(ii)/452
Grant of bail generally is a rule and refusal is an exception if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337-A(i)(ii)/452
Grant of bail generally is a rule and refusal is an exception if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. Tariq Rashid for Petitioner. Ghulam Akbar Sial for the State. Date of hearing: 11th January, 1994. The petitioner who is involved in a case under sections 337-A, 337-A(i) and (ii) and 452, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.239, dated 22-8-1993, registered at Police Station Malikwal, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. As per F.I.R., the petitioner is alleged to have caused a Sota blow on the backside of the head of Mst. Munawar Bibi. Thereafter the petitioner alongwith his brother Bati Khan also belaboured her.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the F.I.R. was lodged after inordinate delay of six hours which remained unexplained; hence no sanctity is attached to this dubious document. He further contended that the injury attributed to the petitioner is not proved through the medical evidence. Over and above this, the offence for which the petitioner is charged, does not fall within the prohibitory clause, so the petitioner, who is behind the bars, since 24-8-1993, without any progress in the trial, is entitled to the grant of bail on this score alone.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the ground that the petitioner caused injuries to a woman on a petty dispute of domestic nature.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Undoubtedly, the offence for which the petitioner is charged, does not fall within the prohibitory clause, as the maximum punishment provided under the law is not more than five years. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last 3/4 months without there being any substantial progress in the trial. If the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, then grant of bail is a rule generally and refusal is an exception. There is no material on the record which would persuade me to withhold the concession of bail, especially keeping in view the delay in the conclusion of the trial. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 (thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./M-1464/L Bail granted.