2012 PLP 1260 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1260 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1260 (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 2012 PLP 1260 (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: 2012 PLP 1260 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Wazir Ali Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/337-F(vi)/34
Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, ghayr-jaifah badiah, common intention
Contentions of the accused were that his co-accused had been declared innocent during the investigation; that injuries on the person of the injured were superficial; that contents of the F.I.R. did not disclose the intention to commit the murder of the injured, as he was at the mercy of the accused but he received only superficial injuries; that dagger mentioned in the F.I.R. had not been recovered rather a knife (churri) had been shown to be recovered from the accused, and that the accused had no previous criminal record
Medico-legal Report of the injured showed that two minor injuries allegedly caused by the accused on the person of the injured had been declared as jurh jaifah damiyah and jurh jaifah badiah, for which maximum punishment of one year and three years respectively had been provided
Question as to whether accused had the intention to commit murder of the injured was a matter of further inquiry, since no one was present at the spot to save the injured from the accused who was allegedly armed with a dagger
Evidentiary value of the recovered knife was to be determined by the Trial Court at the time of the trial
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.408 dated 16-7-2011 under sections 324 and 337F(ii)/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Khayali District Gujranwala.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that two co-accused of the petitioner have been declared innocent during the investigation while disbelieving the version given in the F.I.R.; that both the injuries on the person of the injured were superficial injuries and no surgical procedure was done; that the injury No.1 has been declared as Jurh Jaifah Damiyah whereas the injury No.2 has been declared as Jurh Jaifah Badiah for which, maximum punishment of one year and three years respectively has been provided. Further contends that F.I.R. does not disclose the intention to commit murder of the injured, as he was at the mercy of the accused but he received only superficial injuries; that dagger mentioned in the F.I.R. has not been recovered rather a "Churri" has been shown to be recovered; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 29-7-2011 and there is no previous criminal record against him.
3. On the other hand, learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant while opposing this bail application contends that the petitioner is nominated in the promptly lodged F.I.R. with a specific role of causing injuries on the person of the injured who was medically examined on the same day. Further contends that there is no mala fide or ill will on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case; that recovery of weapon of offence has been effected form the petitioner; that double punishment has been provided for the offence under section 324, P.P.C., one for the murderous assault and the other for the hurt caused; that the offence against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C; that Challan has already been submitted in the court and case is at the stage of evidence.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The Medico-legal Report of the injured available on the record does not disclose the duration of the injuries and two minor injuries allegedly caused by the petitioner on the person of the injured have been declared as Jurh Jaifah Damiyah and Jurh Jaifah Badiah for which maximum punishment of one year and three years respectively has been provided. The question of intention of the petitioner to commit murderous assault on the injured is a matter of further inquiry, as no one was there to save the injured from the petitioner who was allegedly armed with a dagger but no serious injury has been caused to him. The evidentiary value of recovery of "Churri" is also to be determined by the learned trial court at the time of trial. The investigating officer present in Court after consulting the record confirms that the petitioner has no previous criminal record and he is behind the bars since 29-7-2011. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are just tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the learned trial court in any manner whatsoever. M.W.A./M-167/L Bail granted.