1999 PLP 153 (YLR)
ISMAT ULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 153 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Muhammad Khurshid, J |
| Parties | ISMAT ULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 153 (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 1999 PLP 153 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Muhammad Khurshid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 153 (YLR) (ISMAT ULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Hussain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337‑F(iii)/149‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Offence attributed to accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr. P. C. ‑‑‑Accused was behind the bars for the last seven months‑‑‑Investigation in the case had completed and the challan was being sent to Court for trial‑‑‑Investigating Officer was in doubt as to which of the assailants had caused injury to the prosecution witness, particularly when according to his finding accused had reached the spot after the injured person had already sustained the injury‑‑‑Case against accused, thus, required further inquiry and he was admitted to bail accordingly. Sarfraz Hussain Gondal for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sarfraz Hussain Gondal for the State. A case under sections 337‑F‑3 and 149, P.P.C. is registered against the petitioner and others for an occurrence, which took place on 29‑7‑1998 at about 6‑30 p.m. The F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 10‑00 P.M.
2. According to the F.I.R. Ismat Ullah while armed with a firearm made a shot at Sher Khan injuring his left elbow. The aforesaid injury was shown as Ghayr Jaifah Mutalahimah.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the firearm was not specified in the F.I.R., but a 12 bore gun was recovered from the petitioner to implicate him falsely in this case; that according to the police investigation conducted by the S. H. O./Inspector, petitioner had reached the spot after the aforesaid Sher Khan had already been injured that the Investigating Officer was in doubt as to which of the assailant caused injury to the injured person.
4. In the light of above, it was prayed that the petitioner was entitled to bail particularly when he was behind the bars since after his arrest on 31‑8‑1998, and challan has already been prepared for sending it to the learned Trial Court.
5. Lastly it is contended that injury attributed to the petitioner is punishable upto 5 years and as such the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
6. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that firearm injury was attributed to the petitioner, and the weapon of offence i.e., 12 bore gun was recovered from the petitioner and since he had caused actual firearm injury to the injured P. W., therefore, he was the principal accused in this case and as such he had no ground to be released on bail.
7. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the offence attributed to the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause. He is already behind the bars for the last about 7 months. The investigation is complete and the challan is being sent to the Court for trial. The Investigating Officer was also in doubt as to which of the assailant had caused injury to the injured P.W. particularly when according to his finding, petitioner had reached the spot after the injured person had already sustained injury.
8. In view of the above facts, it is a case of further inquiry. Accordingly allowing this petition, petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. N.H.Q./I‑93/L Bail allowed.