2001 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL JABBAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2001 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL JABBAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2001 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL JABBAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Fazal Rauf Joiya for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.382/337-A(ii)(iii)/337-F(i)(v) (iii)/337-L(2)/148/149
No grievous injury was attributed to accused who, at the time of occurrence, was armed with a "Kassi" which was an implement ordinarily used by the villagers for tilting and irrigating the land
Question of the guilt of accused in the circumstances needed further probe
Offence alleged against the accused was not hit by the prohibitory clause of S.497(l), Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Fazal Rauf Joiya for Petitioner. Arshad Ali Chauhan for the Complainant. Muhammad Jbraheem Farooq for the State. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 148 of 2000, dated 24-3-2000 under section 382/337-A(ii)(iii)/337-F(i)F(v)(iii)/ 337-L(ii)/148/149, Pakistan Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. briefly stated is that in the night between 23-3-2000 at about 10-30 p.m. he alongwith his son Muhammad Ahmad went to irrigate their land where they found diversion of the water from the outlet by Abdul Jabbar, accused party. It led to an altercation and the accused party who was armed with weapons caused injuries to the complainant and his son.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for bail on the ground that the case is false and the result of party friction; that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., that no grievous injury is attributed to the petitioner; that he is behind the bars for the last more than four months and is no more required for further investigation.
4. Heard.
5. Admittedly, parties have previous enmity i.e., there is a case G registered against the accused party and there is a case registered against the complainant party at the behest of the accused in the present case. The petitioner is not attributed any grievous injury and it is not denied that at the time of occurrence he was armed with "Kassi" i.e., an implement which is ordinarily used by the village folks for tilting and irrigating the land. In the afore-referred circumstances the question of the petitioner's guilt would require further inquiry. The offence alleged in so far as the petitioner is concerned does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate Section 30 concerned. It is, however, made clear that in case petitioner misuses the concession of ball in any manner it would be open for the learned trial Court to cancel the bail after issuing notice to the petitioner. N. H. Q. /A-137/L Bail allowed.