1989 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Allahdino G. Memon, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAROOQ‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Allahdino G. Memon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD FAROOQ‑‑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. 307 & 324/34‑‑Bail, grant of Accused responsible for causing simple injury‑‑Nature of offence yet to be determined‑ Case of further inquiry‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. S. Ali Ahmad Tariq for Applicant. Salman Ansari for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Salman Ansari for the State. The applicant is facing trial under sections 307 324/34, P.P.C. before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar. It has been contended by Mr. S. Ali Ahmed Tariq learned counsel appearing for the applicant that according to the Medical Certificate the injury sustained by the inured was simple in nature and, therefore, it was a case of further inquiry with regard to the nature of offence committed by the applicant. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon P L D 1963 Kar.
118. Mr. Salman Ansari learned counsel appearing for the State, has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that the injury was on the vital part of the body of the injured. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. The order itself shows that the injury sustained by Sarfraz is simple in nature. In the case of Tai Muhammad v. Tlte State P L D 1963 (W.P.) Kar. 118, it was observed by this Court that:‑ "The thought of man is not friable because even the devil himself knoweth not the thought of man. Intention, then, is to be gathered or inferred from external acts and, therefore, for this purpose it is very necessary to examine the act itself and to see whether it is such an act that by itself is ordinarily capable of causing death in the natural and ordinary course of events. Now applying these principles to the facts of the present case I find that although the appellant had a big knife with a blade three and a half inches long, yet the dimensions of the two injuries inflicted by him upon the injured are so slight as to indicate that it was not his intention to, put an end to the life of the injured.." In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the case of the applicant requires further inquiry with regard to the nature of offence committed by him. I, therefore, direct that the applicant shall be released on bail can furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 25,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. S.A./M‑662/K Bail allowed.