P L D 1984 Lahore 34 (PLP)
JAVAID-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1984 Lahore 34 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | ljaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | JAVAID-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1984 Lahore 34 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1984 Lahore 34 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: ljaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1984 Lahore 34 (PLP) (JAVAID-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Azam Choudhri for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 15th October, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 307-Intention-Conduct, locale of injury and weapon used, held, relevant considerations for determining intent of accused not seeing nature of injury alone. -- S. 497-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Bail-Accused allegedly causing injury with chhuri on back of complainant after making an abortive attempt on his life by firing revolver shots-Absconding after occurrence, declared proclaimed offender and arrested after fifteen months
Accused, held, not entitled to bail in circumstances. Mukhtar Hussain for the State
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner stands charged under section 307, P. P. C. It is alleged that on 24-5-1982 he ineffectively fired at Mumtaz with a revolver and thereafter he assaulted him with a churri. The blow landed on the left side of the back of chest.
2. The motive for the offence was that the petitioner's elder brother had been murdered about 5/6 years before the occurrence in which father of the complainant was challaned and acquitted. Additionally complainant's father stands convicted for causing injuries to the petitioner's father.
3. Bail is urged on the ground that the case is based on false allegations due to enmity, that soon after coming to know of the registration of the .case the petitioner surrendered and it is wrong to allege that he was an absconder and lastly that the injury attributed to him has been. declared to be simple in nature.
4. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail. He states that the petitioner is named in the F. I. R. with a specific role and remained absconding for nearly 15 months and was declared a proclaimed offender.
5. The conduct, locale of the injury and the weapon used are the relevant considerations for determining the intent of the accused. and not seeing the nature of the injury alone. In the instant case, the petitioner is alleged to have caused injury with chhuri on the back of the complainant after making an abortive attempt on his life by firing revolver shots. Furthermore, the petitioner is alleged to have absconded after the occurrence and was declared a proclaimed offender and was arrested about 15 months after the occurrence. In these circumstances, I do not consider him entitled to bail a this stage and accordingly dismiss his application. Bail refused,