1990 PLP 209 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 209 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ahmad Sipra, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 209 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 209 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sajjad Ahmad Sipra, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 209 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazir Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.325/34‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Case was registered against accused under S.325/34, P.P.C. and State Counsel confirmed that challan was also submitted in Court under same sections‑‑‑Case against accused thus was not hit by the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Grievous injury was not stated to have been caused on any vital part of body of complainant who was allegedly assaulted by his sons (accused) with Sotas‑‑‑Accused were admitted to bail in circumstances. Allah Rakha and 3 others v. The State 1986 S C M R 842 rel. Nasir‑ud‑Din Ghauri for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nasir‑ud‑Din Ghauri for the State. The brief facts of the present bail application are that an F.I.R. No.82/89 dated 8‑4‑1989 under section 325/34, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Saddar, Bahawalnagar, against the petitioners and one other.
2. According to the F.I.R., the complainant was not on good terms with his sons, the present petitioners, and that on the day of occurrence he had demanded that his sons should pay him half of the 'Aabiana" due on his land being cultivated by the petitioners which led to the petitioners assaulting him with Sotas.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends for bail on the following grounds:‑ (i) that the F.I.R. had been registered under section 325/34, P.P.C. which is not hit by the prohibitory clause; (ii) that the grievous injury has not been caused on the vital part of the body; (iii) that the quarrel between the parties was because of a domestic dispute and the complainant and the petitioners are father and sons, and, according to the complainant himself, he was constantly involved in quarrel with his wife, the mother of the present petitioners, therefore, it has yet to be established as to who was the aggressor which renders the present case of the petitioners one of further inquiry; and that the learned lower Court in refusing bail had erred in holding that the offence falls under section 326, P.P.C. and not under section 325, P.P.C. In this respect reliance was placed on Allah Rakha and 3 others v. the State (1986 S C M R 842). Wherein it has been held that only grievous injury caused by a sharp‑edged weapon shall fall under section 326, P.P.C.
4. The learned counsel for the State confirms that the callan has been submitted under section 325/34, P.P.C.
5. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the State and placing reliance on the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and under the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees Twenty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Bahawalnagar. N.H.Q./M‑1617/L Bail allowed.