2001 PLP 1697 (MLD)
ZAMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1697 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | : Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, J |
| Parties | ZAMAN‑‑‑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 1697 (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 2001 PLP 1697 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: : Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1697 (MLD) (ZAMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Fazal Rauf Jovia for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337‑F(i), 337‑F(iii), 337‑F(iv), 337‑F(vi), 337‑L(ii), 148 & 149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused was attributed a single blow on the calf of the injured‑‑‑Said injury was also attributed to the co‑accused and it was not clear as to who actually caused the injury‑‑‑Case against the accused on that score would become a matter of further inquiry‑‑ Offence alleged against the accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and the investigation of the case was complete‑‑‑All the co‑accused were on bail‑‑‑Accused was released on bail in circumstances. Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Complainant. Malik Abdul Hameed Khokhar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Abdul Hameed Khokhar for the State. Petitioner seeks a bail in a case registered vide F. I. R. No. 185 dated 21‑6‑2000 under sections 337/F(iv), 337‑F(v), 337‑F(iii), 337‑L(ii), 337‑F(i), 148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Qaboola Sharif, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R, briefly stated is that on the fateful day M/s. Bashir Ahmad, Zaman, Muhammad Tufail and Shah Muhammad armed with Sotas attacked the complainant party. It is alleged that Bashir caused three Sota blows to Khushi Muhammad, Shah Muhammad caused Sota blow to complainant's brother, Munir Ahmad caused injury to Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Zanulan petitioner caused Sota blow which landed on the left calf of Khushi Muhammad. Muhammad Tufail gave Sota blow which also hit left calf of Khushi Muhammad and latter he fell down. All the accused belaboured him thereafter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of three days; that only one injury is attributed to the petitioner which is on non‑vital part of the injured; that all the co -accused are on bail and petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail by submitting that the injured received 21 injuries and there is no justification for the grant of bail. Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the petition but did not deny that the case insofar as the petitioner is concerned does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. Heard.
6. Admittedly the petitioner is attributed a single blow on the calf of injured Khushi Muhammad. The calf injury is also attributed to Tufail. It is not clear as to who actually caused this injury. The case on that score would become a matter of further inquiry. Even otherwise the offence as alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the investigation is complete. All the remaining co‑accused are on bail.
7. For what has been discussed above, this application is allowed and it is directed that petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./Z‑50/L Bail granted.