1983 P Cr (PLP)
FALAK SHER-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FALAK SHER-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions 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: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (FALAK SHER-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zafar Pasha Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497-Bail, grant of-Attempted murder-F. I. R. lodged with unexplained delay of five days-Counter-case regarding same occurrence, against members of complainant party also pending
Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Falek Sher petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and fifteen others under sections 148, 307 and 325/149, P. P. C. The occurrence took place on 9th April, 1982 at 5 p.m. and the F. I. R. was lodged by Nasir complainant on 14th April, 1982. During the occurrence four persons namely, Nasir, Alam Sher, Shahda and Mst. Fateh Bibi suffered injuries at the hands of the accused persons. The part attributed to the petitioner is that he gave two blows with the wrong side of the hatchet to Alam Sher resulting in the fracture of his skull. The petitioner and his co-accused moved an application for prearrest bail in Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions-Judge allowed bail to four accused persons but rejected the application of the remaining accused including the petitioner on 28th April, 1982. The petitioner and all the remaining co-accused then made an application for bail after arrest and all of them were admitted to bail by order dated 9th May, 1982 on the ground that they were no more required by the Police, there was a delay of five days in lodging the F. I. R. and the cross-complaint under sections 148, 307 and 325/ 149, P. P. C. was pending and it was yet to be determined as to who was the aggressor. Thereafter an application for cancellation of bail was moved in the Sessions Court against the accused including the petitioner which also came up for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who, by his order dated 10th July, 1982, can celled the bail of the petitioner but rejected the application in so far as it related to the other accused. The petitioner was taken into custody on the same day and is in jail since then.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is delay of five days in lodging the F. I. R. for which no reasonable explanation is forthcoming. In the order of the learned Magistrate it is mentioned that the complaint instituted by Suba against the members of the complainant party is pending. In the circumstances when there was a counter version of the occurrence and the F. I. R. was delayed by five days, the learned Magistrate had exercised his discretion m a proper manner. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa Magistrate, Chiniot. Bail allowed.