1988 P Cr (PLP)
FARHAT ABBAS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | FARHAT ABBAS — 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: Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (FARHAT ABBAS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Kamal Mufti for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th August, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307--Bail, grant of--Injury attributed to petitioner found to be simple--Bail allowed in circumstances. Muhammad Aslam v The State 1987 P Cr. L.J 1033 and Muhammad Sarwar etc. v The State 1987 P Cr. L.J 1015 ref. Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Kamal Mufti for Petitioner. Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 4th August, 1987. The petitioner, Farhat Abbas, has moved this petition for bail after arrest under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. in a case registered against him under section 307/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Moghalpura, Lahore vide F.I.R. No.289/87 dated 23-5-1987.
2. The brief allegations against the petitioner are that he while armed with a chhuri caused an injury which injury landed on the abdomen of the witness Abdul Ghaffar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the injury attributed to the petitioner has been declared simple. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has been implicated in the case falsely. He stated that there was no occasion for the petitioner to come and cause solitary injury on the person of the witness as a brother of the accused-petitioner was already there and was causing injuries to the witness. The learned counsel lastly argued that at the most the case will fall under section 324 and not under section 307, P.P.C. The learned counsel maintained that this case is a case of further enquiry and as such the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State stated that the F.I.R. was lodged promptly and that the injury attributed to the petitioner is on the vital part of the injured witness.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Muhammad Aslam v The State 1987 PCr. L.J 1033 and Muhammad Sarwar etc. v the State 1987 PCr. L.J. 1015 to contend that the injury attributed to the petitioner has been declared simple and as such he is entitled to the concession of bail. In the first referred case the offence against the accused was under section 307 P.P.C. and injury attributed to him was declared simple in nature. The learned Judge was pleased to grant bail to the accused. Respectfully following the rule laid down in the above referred case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie I am of the view that the injury attributed to the petitioner has been found to be simple and as such I proceed to admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.60,000. (Rupees sixty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner Cantt. Lahore. The trial Court is also directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within a period of three months positively. S.G.D./F-33/L Bail allowed.