1995 PLP 1264 (MLD)
HIDAYAT ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1264 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HIDAYAT ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1264 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1264 (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: 1995 PLP 1264 (MLD) (HIDAYAT ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ali Muhammad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/109
F.I.R. was lodged after an unexplained delay of ten days
Injuries suffered by the injured witness according to his medico-legal report were Ghayr Jaifah Mudihah punishable up to 5 years' R.L
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Ali Muhammad for Petitioner. Sh. Mumtaz for the State. Hidayat Ullah son of Sher Muhammad accused in case F.I.R. No.434/94, dated 16-9-1994 under section 324/109, P.P.C. Police Station Bhikki, District Sheikhupura has filed this petition under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. for the grant of post-arrest bail.
2. According to F.I.R. the complainant, Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Afzal were playing cards in front of house of Muhammad Afzal; suddenly Hidayat Ullah armed with a gun came there and raised Lalkara that the complainant be taught lesson for taking possession of the land left by Nishan; he made indiscriminate firing one of which hit on the right side of the neck of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that there is an unexplained delay of 10 days in lodging the F.I.R. that the medico-legal report negates the prosecution story; non- availability of the blood at the spot makes even the place of occurrence doubtful and that the declaration of innocence of other co-accused nominated in the F.I.R. creates doubts in the prosecution story and as such the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner has been nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role. Further the challan has been put in the Court and there is no occasion for release of the petitioner on bail.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as State Counsel at some length.
5. Admittedly occurrence took place on 6-9-1994 and the petitioner was discharged from hospital on 11-9-1994 while F.I.R. was got registered on 16-9-1994 without offering any explanation. According to medico-legal report of the injured, injuries Nos.l and 2 have been declared as Ghayr-Jaifah Mudihah for which maximum punishment is 5 years. Respectfully following the law laid down in case of Karim Haider and others v. The State 1986 SCMR 938 and Muhammad Riaz Munna v. The State 1993 SCMR 1321 the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Sheikhupura. Nothing said in this order shall prejudice the case of either party at the trial. N.H.Q:/H-153/L Bail allowed.