1994 PCr (PLP)
MHANDA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PCr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MHANDA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PCr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PCr (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: 1994 PCr (PLP) (MHANDA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ahmad Din Farooq for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 1324/337-A/148/149
Complainant's assertion of being in possession of disputed land and being victim of aggression from accused was open to doubt and had to be resolved after evidence during the trial
F.I.R. was lodged with two days delay-- Accused was behind the bars for the last over six months and the challan had yet to be submitted to Court
Case against accused needed further enquiry-- Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ms. Tahira Bukhari for the State. Talaat Farooq Sheikh for the Complainant. Mhanda petitioner and his co-accused are facing allegations under section 324/337-A read with sections 148 and 149, P.P.C., for having attacked the injured four persons of the complainant party. The petitioner had allegedly dealt Sota blow on the head of Ramzan P.W. which, however, was declared ac grievous by the doctor.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed bail on the following premises:-- (i) The petitioner was in possession of the disputed property at the time of the alleged occurrence and it was the complainant party who had aggressed and involved the petitioner and others in the fight in which three persons on the side of the petitioner had sustained injuries including Fateh Muhammad who had received as many as seven injuries and Mst. Bawa received three injuries. These injuries were, however, suppressed in the F.I.R. (ii) The F.I.R. was lodged with two days delay. (iii) The petitioner is behind the bars since a period of over six months with no prospect of early conclusion of his trial as the challan has yet to be submitted in the Court.
3. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant have opposed the bail, the latter even disputing the factum of possession of the petitioner over the land. I, however, find from the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, passed on the 9th of June, 1992, that the complainant had admitted before the Court that the petitioner had grown the crop over the land and was in its possession with a stay order from the Court of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation). The assertion of the complainant that they are in possession of the land and were victim of the aggression is open to doubt and has to be resolved after evidence during the trial. In view of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case for bail is made out under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./M-1173/L Bail allowed.