YLR 2000

2000 PLP 2682 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD MANSHA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2361/B of 1999, decided on 22nd December, 1999.
Honorable Judges
M. Naeemullah Khan Sherwani, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2000 PLP 2682 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members M. Naeemullah Khan Sherwani, J
Parties MUHAMMAD MANSHA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 2682 (YLR)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 2682 (YLR)?

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

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 2682 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD MANSHA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Arshad Ali Chohan for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 22nd December 1999.
  • 6. Having heard both the sides and' going through the record, I find that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner have force. The factum of fracture of metacarpal bone of left hand of the petitioner is proved and could not be controverted by the prosecution side. No explanation regarding these injuries has been offered by the prosecution. Suppression o1 grievous injuries on the person of the accused has always been viewed with grave suspicion by the superior Courts of Pakistan and case of the petitioner would call for further inquiry. Who is the aggressor or aggressed, is a material question to be resolved by the trial Court after recording of some material evidence in the case. Until then, case .of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry. The petitioner is no longer required for investigation purposes. No further offence is to be discovered from him and his further incarceration is not likely to serve any useful purpose to the prosecution.

Headnotes / Summary

S.497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337 A(ii)/337-L(ii)34

Bail, grant of

Accused had also sustained two injuries at the hands of complainant and his companions during course of incident which injuries were duly testified by Medical Authorities after examination of accused, but said injuries had been suppressed by complainant side

No explanation regarding said injuries had been offered by prosecution

Suppression of grievous injuries on person of accused had always been viewed with grave suspicion-- Who was aggressor or aggressed, was a crucial question to be resolved by Trial Court after recording of some material evidence-- Case of accused thus fell within ambit of further inquiry

Accused was no longer required for investigation purpose

No further offence was to be discovered from accused and his further incarceration was not likely to serve any useful purpose to the prosecution

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Muhammad Anwarul Haq for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Date of hearing: 22nd December 1999. The petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No. 207 of 1999, dated 2-9-1999, under section 337-A(ii)/337-L(ii)/34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Fateh Shah, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari, at the behest of one Munir Ahmad.

2. The petitioner alongwith others while armed with a hatchet and Sotas is alleged to have launched an assault on the person of the complainant and produced as many as six injuries on his person. Out of the abovesaid six wounds, only one incised wound is available on skull of he victim of assault.

3. After being arrested on 18-10-1999, the petitioner preferred an application for grant of post-arrest bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, who declined this relief by virtue of his order, dated 7-12-1999 on the basis of multifarious reasons embodied in the order itself. Hence, this petition before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he also sustained two injuries at the hands of the complainant and his compatriots during the course of incident and was duly examined by the Medical Authority on 3-9-1999, which are located at his left eye brow and left hand. Metacarpal bone of left hand of the petitioner is fractured. He contends that these injuries have been suppressed by the complainant side and the offence with which the petitioner stood charged is not punishable with ten years or more, and, as such, he is entitled to the relief prayed for.

5. Conversely, learned counsel for the State submits that name of the petitioner figures in the First Information Report and his fullest participation in the commission of crime is established through recovery of hatchet allegedly used by him for causing injury upon head of the complainant.

6. Having heard both the sides and' going through the record, I find that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner have force. The factum of fracture of metacarpal bone of left hand of the petitioner is proved and could not be controverted by the prosecution side. No explanation regarding these injuries has been offered by the prosecution. Suppression o1 grievous injuries on the person of the accused has always been viewed with grave suspicion by the superior Courts of Pakistan and case of the petitioner would call for further inquiry. Who is the aggressor or aggressed, is a material question to be resolved by the trial Court after recording of some material evidence in the case. Until then, case .of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry. The petitioner is no longer required for investigation purposes. No further offence is to be discovered from him and his further incarceration is not likely to serve any useful purpose to the prosecution.

7. For all that has been said earlier, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner is directed to make himself available during the trial proceedings. H.B.T./M-302/L Bail granted.