2003 PLP 1494 (MLD)
KHUDA BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1494 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHUDA BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1494 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1494 (MLD)?
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: 2003 PLP 1494 (MLD) (KHUDA BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M.R. Fakhar Baloch for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.334/336/148/149/109
Accused allegedly had cut left ear of complainant with Churra and Doctor had mentioned said injury in his Medico Legal Report and same was declared as 'Itlaf-i-Udw'
Offence against accused which attracted' Ss.334/336/148/149/109, P.P.C., was covered under prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Challan had been submitted in the Court and formal charge had been framed against accused-- -Sessions Judge had issued direction to Trial Court for conclusion of trial within two months- --Accused was not entitled to concession of bail at that stage.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Riaz Ahmad for the Complainant. Khuda Bakhsh, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No.121 dated 13-5-2002 under sections 334/336/148/149/109, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan.
2. Briefly the allegation against him as per F.I.R. is that he on 13-5-2002 at about 10-00 a.m. had cut the left ear of the complainant Malik Nazir Ahmad.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in due to enmity; that MLR of the injured is procured one; that the offence under sections 334/336/148/149/109. P.P.C. is not attracted in this case; and that challan has not been submitted in the Court despite the fact that he was arrested six months ago.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R. that he allegedly with Churra had cut the left ear of the complainant; that the offence under sections 334/336/148/149/109, P.P.C. is attracted in this case; that it is a heinuous crime case; that MLR of the injured has supported the allegation against him, and that challan has been submitted in the Court and in the same formal charge was framed against him yesterday.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. Allegedly he with Churra had cut the left ear of the complainant, who is present in Court. His said ear seems to have been cut. The doctor has mentioned such injury as No.2 in his MLR. The same has been declared as Itlaf-i-Udw. Hence offence under sections 334/336/148/ 149/109, P.P.C. apparently seems to have been attracted in this case. The same is covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The challan has been submitted in the Court and in the same formal charge has been framed against him yesterday.
7. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the complainant that the learned Sessions Judge, Multan has issued direction for conclusion of trial within two months, which has not been controverted by the other side.
8. In these circumstances, I do not find him entitled to bail at this stage. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./K-225/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail application dismissed.