1994 P Cr (PLP)
SHABBIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHABBIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 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 1994 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: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (SHABBIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- G.H. Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324/337-A/148/149
Injury sustained by the victim was simple in nature in the absence of any X-ray report though caused with the rifle's butt
Accused in the circumstances could not be said to have acted with the intention of Qatl-i-Amd and application of S.324, P.P.C. was not free from doubt
Judgment & Decree
G.H. Khan for Petitioner. Syed Fazal Hussain Jaffery for the State. Date of hearing: 4th December, 1993. Shabbir alias Nenoo petitioner, who alongwith others is involved in a case under section 324/337-A/148/149, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.405, dated 21-10-1992, registered at Police Station City Hafizabad, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. As per F.I.R., the petitioner is alleged to have given butt blow of 7 mm rifle on the head of Usman.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the injury ascribed to the petitioner, though on the head of the victim, is simple in nature, because Muhammad Usman injured P.W. did not appear before the doctor concerned for X-ray of his head, hence in the absence of any X-ray report the injury cannot be treated as grievous. Learned counsel further submitted that the nature of weapon used by the petitioner demonstrates that he never intended to cause Qatl-i-Amd of the injured P.W., thus the case against him is one of further inquiry, as it would be determined after the recording of some evidence by the trial Court whether he intended to commit Qatl-i-AAnd of the victim or not, so the petitioner is entitled to bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer has conceded this fact that in the absence of any X-ray report, it cannot be said that the injury attributed to the petitioner is grievous or dangerous to life, but he submitted that the location and the nature of weapon used by the petitioner shows that he intended to commit Qatl-i-Amd.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the injury sustained by the victim is simple in nature in the absence of any X-ray report, though caused with the butt of the rifle, hence this act of the petitioner on the face of it cannot be treated as an act whereby he A intended to cause Qatl-i-Amd, in such circumstances, the application of section 324, P.P.C. is not free from doubt so the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C. Hafizabad. N.H.Q./S-403/L Bail allowed.