1988 P Cr (PLP)
GUL MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Arif, J |
| Parties | GUL MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Arif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (GUL MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf Mohandra for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 11th November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307 & 324/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused not causing any injury on vital part of body of complainant‑‑Only simple injury attributed to accused‑‑Accused in jail for about five month s‑‑Co‑accused responsible for causing grievous injury, already on bail alongwith another co‑accused‑‑Question of application of S.307, P.P.C. needed further enquiry‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. Abdul Hameed for the State. Muhammad Asif Khan for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Hameed for the State. Muhammad Asif Khan for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 11th November, 1987. Gul Muhammad petitioner has applied for post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 81/87 dated 2‑6‑1987 registered under section 307/ 324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Pacca Laran on the statement of Noor Muhammad son of Ghulam Mustafa.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Gul Muhammad petitioner armed with a pistol as also co‑accused Abdul Hamid and Noor Muhammad son of Karim Bakhsh armed with a soti and hatchet respectively, launched a murderous attack on the complainant and caused him as many as seven injuries. As for Gul Muhammad petitioner it has been alleged that he fired two shots on the‑complainant out of which one proved ineffective and the other hit him on his right thigh. The doctor found the injury allegedly caused by the petitioner to be simple.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case punishable under section 307, P.P.C. is made out against the petitioner inasmuch as he did not cause fire‑arm wound on the vital part of the body of Noor Muhammad; that the petitioner is in jail for the last more than five months and his co‑accused who allegedly caused grievous injury, is already on bail. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the ground that the petitioner was armed with a pistol and had fired shot hitting the leg of the victim.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the petitioner did not cause injury on the vital part of the body of the complainant; that the injury allegedly caused by him has been declared simple; that the two co‑accused have already been released on bail; that one of the co‑accused, who is on bail had allegedly caused grievous injury; that the petitioner is in jail for the last about five months and that in the circumstance of this case the question of the application of section 307, P.P.C needs further inquiry.
5. For what has been said above, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the AC/Duty Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan. S.A./G‑143/L Bail granted.