1984 P Cr (PLP)
SULTAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1984 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gul Muhammad Khan, J |
| Parties | SULTAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 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 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Gul Muhammad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 P Cr (PLP) (SULTAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Ghulam Rasool and Niaz Ahmad for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497/498.--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149-Bail- Death prima facie not due to injuries but occurring due to hepatic failure (Jaundice) which deceased developed during his stay for treatment of injuries in hospital-Delay in lodging First Information Report not explained-All five accused real brothers--Possibi lity of involving innocent persons present-Bail granted. S. D. Qureshi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. D. Qureshi for the State. This is an application for bail with regard to offences under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 6th September, 1982, whereas the case was registered on 13th Septem ber, 1982. 2. The complainant and the petitioner are close relations. They had some family dispute. The complainant side had gone to the village of the petitioners to get it settled. Suddenly, at 8-00 a.m. in the morning the complainant heard the noise and he with his wife went there to see that the petitioner alongwith his other four brothers was assaulting Muhammad Arif. Some other persons of the locality were also attracted and they are alleged to have seen the occurrence. Muhammad Arif remained with the petitioner on 6th September, but was, thereafter, taken away to the hospital where he developed hepatic failure (Jaundice) and died. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the other co-accused are real brothers and the other co-accused are real brothers and they have been falsely involved. It is further stated that as there is delay of 7 days in is entitled to bail. 3. The learned counsel for the State argues that the F.I.R. occurred because of the close relations investigating Officer who is present with record, show that some other persons of the locality had also and seen the occurrence. 4. According to the doctor, the death occurred due to hepatic failure (Jaundice) which the deceased developed during his stay for his treatment of his injuries in the hospital. Prima facie, therefore, it was not a direct result of the injuries. Further, the delay in the F.I.R. has not been properly explained. May be, that some innocent persons have also been involved. It is to be noted that all the five accused are real brothers. In this view of the, matter, I allow the petitioner the concession of bail. He shall be released on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Nankana. M. Y. H. Bail granted.