1996 PLP 1693 (SCMR)
ABDUL AZIZ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1693 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar and Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL AZIZ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1693 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 1693 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar and Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1693 (SCMR) (ABDUL AZIZ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
- Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1995.
- Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 17‑10‑1994 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in Cr. Misc. No.1488/B/1994). (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/324/148/149‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contentions that accused had not caused any injury to deceased but had allegedly caused a simple injury to a prosecution witness and that co‑accused with a similar role having been released on bail, he, on the principle of consistency; was also entitled to bail. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/324/148/149‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused admittedly had not caused any injury to the deceased and the knife injury allegedly caused by him to the prosecution witness according to medical evidence was simple in nature‑‑ Co‑accused with a similar role had already been released on bail which had not been challenged by prosecution‑‑‑Bail was granted to accused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.
Appellant, Abdul Aziz, alongwith Nazir Hussain and others is booked for offence under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C.,- vide F.I.R. No.14, dated 9-5-1994, registered at Police. Station 'B' Division, Dera Ghazi Khan. Allegation against the appellant is that he and his co=accused Nazir Hussain caused knife injures on the person of witness Muhammad Nadeem. Nazir Hussain and Abdul Aziz were arrested by the police. Nazir Hussain was allowed bail by the lower Court. But the appellant could not succeed in his attempt there. Bail application moved on his behalf before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, was rejected on 17-10-1994. He moved petition for leave to appeal before this Court. Vide Order dated 28-11-1994 this Court while granting leave to appeal observed that "the petitioner had not caused any injury to the deceased man Shahzad by name. He had allegedly caused a simple injury to Nadeem P.W. The latter had two injuries on his person; the other injury was also simple and was allegedly caused by Nazir Hussain accused. Nazir Hussain was admitted to bail and it is contended that on the principle of consistency, the petitioner was also entitled to bail. Leave to appeal is granted to consider these contentions".
2. We have gone through the F. I. R. It is admitted fact that, the appellant I had not caused any injury to deceased Shahzad, it is also an admitted fact that Nazir Hussain and appellant Abdul Aziz caused knife injuries on the person of witness Nadeem. The medical evidence reveals that there were two knife injuries on the left arid right sides of the chest of witness Nadeem. Both the injuries were declared by the Medical Officer to be incised wounds and skin deep and were simple in nature.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated that on the same nature of injury caused on P.W. Nadeem, Nazir Hussain has been allowed bail. On the principle of consistency the appellant was also entitled to bail. The learned counsel for the State admitted that no application for cancellation of bail of Nazir Hussain was moved. before the High Court or before this Court. In such view of, the fact we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant also. He be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rs. fifty thousand) with one surety to the satisfaction of the, trial Court. N.H.Q./A-1268/S Bail granted