1968 P Cr (PLP)
SHAHRA KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAHRA KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 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: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (SHAHRA KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498‑Bail before arrest‑Complaint under S. 307, P. P. C.‑Question whether on facts offence fell under S. 307 or 324‑Cannot be considered by High Court‑Application for bail before arrest rejected.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Aslam and others v. The State P L D 1967 S C 539 rel. Sh. Abdur Rahman . Petitioner. Qazi Ahmad Khan for A.‑G. for the State. The learned counsel for the State on the strength of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Muhammad Aslam and others v. The State (PLD1967SC539) argued that since the case was at a preliminary stage and no evidence had been recorded, the High Court was not competent to make assessment of the medical evidence to form an opinion whether an offence under section 307 or 324, P. P. C., was constituted. In the authority referred to above, Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J. speaking for the Supreme Court, observed: "Where there was direct evidence of the assault by the accused on deceased, what was the nature of the injuries caused by the appellants and whether they were collectively caused with the intention of causing death is for the trial Court to judge. The High Court was not competent to make an assessment of the medical evidence and form an opinion whether the offence committed by the accused fell under section 302 or 325, P. P. C. which presumably was the basis of the order granting bail."
2. The rule enunciated by the Supreme Court, in my view,' applies to a case where the High Court is to consider whether the offence would fall under section 307 or 324, P. P. C. I, therefore, cannot consider the question whether on the facts of the instant case an offence under section 324, P. P. C. has been constituted.
3. In the result, the application for bail before arrest is rejected. Petition dismissed.