2006 PLP 628 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 628 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 628 (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 2006 PLP 628 (MLD)?
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: 2006 PLP 628 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Habibullah Shakir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A(i), 337-A(iii) & 34
Accused though was named in F.I.R. with specific part of violence alleging that he inflicted a hard blow to injured, but the fact remained that Medical Officer at the time of examination of injured, had advised for X-ray; he had also given an opinion regarding fracture without referring to the Radiologist
Injured had not been admitted in the hospital
Accused was stated to be behind the bars for the last about two months being no more required by the police for further investigation and the trial against him had not yet commenced
Sufficient reasons were available to believe that case of accused needed further inquiry into his guilt and fell under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused, in circumstances was entitled for concession of bail.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AKRAM BAITU, J.
Through this petition the petitioner has sought for the relief of his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.287 of 2003 dated 20-11-2003 registered under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), 34, P.P.C. at Police Station Alpa District Multan.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely involved in this case due to previous enmity; that the offences complained are not applicable against the petitioner; that the F.I.R. is belied by the medical evidence; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about two months being no more required by the police for further investigation and the trial against him has still been commenced.
3. On the contrary learned State Counsel opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with a specific part of violence, therefore, he is not entitled for the concession of bail.
4. Heard both the parties. Record perused.
5. Record reveals that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with a specific part of violence to the effect that he allegedly inflicted a hard blow to Zahoor Ahmad injured yet the fact remains that as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the medical officer at the time of examination of injured has advised for X-ray but he has also given an opinion regarding the fracture without referring to the Radiologist. He has further went on arguing that the injured has not been admitted in the hospital. The petitioner is stated to be behind the bars for the last about two months being no more required by the police for further investigation and the trial against him has still not been commenced. In view of the above discussion, there are sufficient reasons to believe that case of the petitioner needs further inquiry into his guilt and falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is therefore, held entitled for the concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of.Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-59/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.