1995 PLP 90 (MLD)
BASHIR AHMED ‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 90 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Haider Lakho, J |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMED ‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 90 (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 1995 PLP 90 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ghulam Haider Lakho, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 90 (MLD) (BASHIR AHMED ‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497 (2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/324/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Accused was not attributed any injury to the deceased but was alleged to have caused a simple gunshot injury to a prosecution witness on his shoulder, a non vital part of the body‑‑‑Accused was complainant in the counter‑case and was himself injured and it was yet to be determined as to which party had acted in aggression‑‑‑Case against accused, thus, needed further inquiry and he was granted bail accordingly. PLD 1989 Kar. 37 and 1993 PCr.LJ 1383 ref. Jai Jai Veshno for Applicant. Abdul Sattar Chohan for A.A.‑G. for the State
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Bail Application No.255 of 1994, decided on 25th September, 1994 ‑‑‑‑S. 497 (2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/324/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Accused was not attributed any injury to the deceased but was alleged to have caused a simple gunshot injury to a prosecution witness on his shoulder, a non vital part of the body‑‑‑Accused was complainant in the counter‑case and was himself injured and it was yet to be determined as to which party had acted in aggression‑‑‑Case against accused, thus, needed further inquiry and he was granted bail accordingly. PLD 1989 Kar. 37 and 1993 PCr.LJ 1383 ref. Jai Jai Veshno for Applicant. Abdul Sattar Chohan for A.A.‑G. for the State The contention of the learned counsel is that there is case and counter case between the parties. All the accused in the counter‑case are released on bail by the trial Court. Part assigned to the present applicant is of causing gun shot injury to prosecution witness Moula Bux on his shoulder, which is not vital part of the body and is simple in nature. Applicant is complainant in the counter‑case and himself is injured. Learned counsel further contended that it is yet to be determined which party was aggressor. Co‑accused who were armed with hatchets and responsible for causing hatchet injuries to P.Ws. have already been granted bail by the trial Court. Applicant is not attributed any injury to the deceased. Learned counsel has relied upon PLP 1989 Kar. 37 and 1993 PCr.LJ 1383. Mr. Abdul Sattar Chohan learned counsel for the State has conceded to the grant of bail, and has contended that the case of the applicant requires further enquiry, as it is yet to be determined who is aggressor party. In view of the 1 circumstances, bail is granted to the applicant on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 & PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./B‑261/K Bail granted