2003 PLP 2131 (YLR)
JUMMAN alias JUMMOO — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 2131 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Nabi Soomro, J |
| Parties | JUMMAN alias JUMMOO — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2131 (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 2003 PLP 2131 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ghulam Nabi Soomro, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 2131 (YLR) (JUMMAN alias JUMMOO — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/337-H(2)/147/148/149
Accused had contended that thigh of injured on which fire-arm injury was allegedly caused by him was not a vital part of the body
Contention of accused was repelled because every part of the body of a person would be a vital part in relation to sustaining of a fire-arm injury-- Medical certificate had shown a fire-arm injury upon the thigh of injured which had supported the F.I.R. version
Co-accused were granted bail as their cases were distinguishable from the case of accused-- Accused in circumstances was not entitled to bail. Noor Muhammad Shaikh for Applicant. Aziz Ahmed Khuwaja for Complainant. Ghulam Shabir Shar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Aziz Ahmed Khuwaja for Complainant. Ghulam Shabir Shar for the State.
1. Granted.
2. Granted for the time being subject to all just exceptions.
3. Applicant Jumman is alleged to have caused a gun shot injury to Muhammad Saeed by firing from his gun on 25-8-2002 at 10 a.m. Such report was lodged by his father complainant Muhammad Mithal at Police Station Ahmedpur. It was argued that some of the co -accused were granted pre-arrest bail by this Court whereas others have been granted bail by the learned trial Court. It was urged that the injury caused to the injured was on his thing which was not a vital part of the body and that there was enmity between the parties. Reliance was placed upon 2002 MLD
150. M/s. Ghulam Shabir Shar, learned counsel for the State and Aziz Ahmed Khawaja for the complainant, have opposed the bail plea stating the injured is in his teens and he has been disabled permanently. I would not agree with the contentions of the defence that thigh is not a vital part of the body. No dictum is cited in support of the contention. To me, every part of the body of a person would be a vital part in relation to sustaining of a fire-arm injury. The medical certificate shows a fire-arm injury upon the thigh of the injured, which supports the F.I.R. version. The co-accused were granted bail as their cases were distinguishable from the case of the present applicant. The applicant is not entitled to bail. His bail application is dismissed. H.B.T./J-53/K Bail application dismissed.