PCRLJ 1983

1983 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD. ARI1" AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1562-B of 1982, decided on 8th August, 1982.
Honorable Judges
Lehrasap Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1983 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Lehrasap Khan, J
Parties MUHAMMAD. ARI1" AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Primary Law (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Lehrasap Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD. ARI1" AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Mian Qurban Sadiq Aram for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing : 8th August, 1982.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497-Bail-Attempted murder Fire-arm injuries though simple in nature, yet found on vital parts of victim

Bail declined, in circumstance. -- S. 497-Bail - Attempted murder-Police report submitted under S. 173, Cr. P. C. disclosing that petitioner was not armed with any weapon at time of occurrence nor any recovery effected from him-Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstance. Hamid Ullah for the Complainant. Muhammad Abul Fazal for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Mian Qurban Sadiq Aram for Petitioner. Hamid Ullah for the Complainant. Muhammad Abul Fazal for the State. Date of hearing : 8th August, 1982. The record of investigation brought by the aforementioned Police Officer has been perused and considered.

2. The petitioners are involved in a case punishable under section 307/34, P. P. C. The case against them arises out of F. I. R. No. 56 dated 29th March, 1982 lodged at P. S. Sadar, Mianwali by Ghulam Yasin complainant, The petitioners are alleged to have attempted the murder or Muhammad Ishaque brother of the complainant at about 8-00 a. m. on 29th March, 1982 in front of the house of the said Muhammad Ishaque by firing at him with a .12 bore gun and a .11bore pistol. Muhammad Arif petitioner was allegedly armed with -12 bore gun while Sher Muhammad was allegedly armed with 12 bore pistol. The pellets of the shots thus fired by the petitioners caused injuries to Muhammad Ishaque at his chest, right fore-arm and left thigh. It is averred in the F. I. R. that Muhammad Ishaque also fired ineffectively at the assailants in his self-defence. The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by the complainant and Abdul Latif.

3. As a result of medical examination, a circular wound and a bruise both caused by fire-arm were found on the right chest of Muhammad Yasin while one bruise was noticed on his right fore-arm and a small bruise was observed on his left thigh at the time of medical examination.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that as per medical report all injuries on the person of Muhammad Ishaque have been found to be simple. He also fired at the petitioners with a fire-arm and, therefore, it is a case of further enquiry. It is next contended that as a result of Police investigation. Sher Muhammad petitioner was not armed with any weapon at the time .of occurrence and that the petitioners were in detention for the last 4/5 months.

5. As already observed, the occurrence has admittedly taken place in front of the door of the house of Muhammad Isbaque. It cannot, therefore, be said that he might also be an aggressor. Fire-arm injuries have been found as a result of medical examination on the vital parts of A the body of the said Muhammad Ishaque, It. however, transpires from the report submitted under section 173, Cr. P. C. that Muhammad Arit was not armed with any weapon at the time of occurrence and no recovery has been made from him, although weapon of offence has been recovered from Sher Muhammad.

6. In the above circumstances, without expressing my opinion about B the merits of the case, I sadmit Arif petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rs. twenty thousands only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. Mianwali, but the plea for bail of Sher Muhammad petitioner is declined. ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly