1992 P Cr (PLP)
SULTAN MAHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | SULTAN MAHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 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 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (SULTAN MAHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Navid Rasul Mirza for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/109/34‑‑Bail‑‑‑Although injury attributed to accused had not contributed to the death of the deceased and the injuries suffered by deceased were not on vital parts, but apparently the accused had played an active role in the occurrence‑‑‑Motive was also directed against accused‑‑‑Case was even likely to be taken up for trial after four or five months‑‑‑Bail was refused to accused in circumstances. Arif Iqbal Bhatti for the Complainant. Muhammad Akram for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Arif Iqbal Bhatti for the Complainant. Muhammad Akram for the State. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and others under section 302/307/109/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Tandlianwala, Teshil Samundri, District Faisalabad.
2. According to F.I.R. the petitioner armed with a Sarya accompanied by Murtaza and Majeed armed with Sota and Burchhi respectively had launched attack on the complainant party. Petitioner was alleged to have inflicted Sarya blow on the back of the deceased. He was also alleged to have caused injuries to Hamid. Hamid had also been caused injuries by Murtaza.
3. Bail is being sought by the petitioner on the grounds that the injury alleged to have been caused to the deceased by the petitioner had neither proved fatal nor contributed to death and that the injuries alleged to have been caused by him to Hamid were not on vital parts of the body. Finally it has been urged that the petitioner is in jail since about. 16 months and the case has not vet been fixed for trial. The deceased was found to have suffered injury on the back. It was 7 c.m. x 2 c.m. in dimension. Two fingers of one hand of Hamid who had allegedly suffered injuries at the hands of the petitioner and his co‑accused have been incapacitated while one finger of the other hand is also not in a, working state.
4. Although injury alleged 'to have been‑caused by the petitioner to the deceased had not contributed to the death and the injuries suffered by Hamid were not on vital parts, but it is apparent that the petitioner had played an active role in the occurrence. In fact, the motive was also directed against him as it was he, who was aggrieved at the hands of the accused (sic) for the reason that his daughter had been abducted by the accused‑party. It is reported by the trial Judge that the case is likely to be taken up for trial after 4 or five months. In the circumstances I am not inclined to allow bail to the petitioner. The same is dismissed. The trial Judge is directed to finish the trial after taking up at its own turn without unnecessary adjournments. N.H.Q./S‑132/L Bail refused.