1987 P Cr (PLP)
SULEMAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | SULEMAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 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 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (SULEMAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shabbir Lali for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324 & 326/34--Bail, grant of--Accused in jail for more than four months--Some confusion about number of injuries existing--Benefit of such confusion, held, would naturally go to accused at bail stage--Bail allowed in circumstances.- [Benefit of doubt]. Farrukh Humayun for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324 & 326/34--Bail, grant of--Accused in jail for more than four months--Some confusion about number of injuries existing--Benefit of such confusion, held, would naturally go to accused at bail stage--Bail allowed in circumstances.- [Benefit of doubt]. Shabbir Lali for Petitioners. Farrukh Humayun for the State. The petitioner who has been arrested in a case registered under section 326/34/324, P.P.C. at Police Station Musakhel, District Mianwali, on 15-11-1985, seeks bail on the grounds that no motive is alleged against him and that the injury which resulted in fracture, has been specifically assigned to his co-accused Suleman. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the second injury mentioned in the Medico-legal report is the result of the first one. 2. Learned counsel for the State without adverting to the fact, whether the two injuries were the result of one blow or two, submitted that as the petitioner (Nur Muhammad) had come armed with the co-accused, he shared common intention and so he does not deserve to be released on bail. 3. The petitioner (Nur Muhammad) is in jail since more than four months. There is some confusion about the number of injuries. The benefit of the same at the present stage will naturally go to the petitioner. In the circumstances, he is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ trial Court, Mianwali. 4. I have avoided expressing any opinion whether the two injuries mentioned in the medico-legal report are the result of one blow or not purposely so that the trial Court is able to decide the matter independently, after recording the evidence. S.A. /764/L Bail allowed.