1995 P Cr (PLP)
LIAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LIAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 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: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (LIAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner,
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337-F(v)/3-1
Bail, grant of-.--Rule of consistency
Case of accused to some extent was identical with that of co-accused who had since been released on bail
Accused, therefore, was also entitled to the same concession on the principle of consistency
Judgment & Decree
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner, Sh. Muhammad Raheem for the State Being an accused in case F.I.R. No.211/93, dated 12-10-1993 registered under section 337-F(v)/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Kameer, District Sahiwal Liaquat Ali, petitioner, has moved this Court under section 497/498, Cr. P.C. for his release on bail, the same request having been refused, to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide his order, dated 13-12-1993.
2. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner as unfolded in the F.I.R. is; that on 8-10-1993 at 8 a.m. the present petitioner being armed with a Sota inflicted the same at the right cheek of Muhammad Ramzan son of the complainant in the area of Chak No.123/9-L Police Station Kameer, under the grievance that Muhammad Ramzan had forbade them for un-cleaning the mud from the cart in front of his house.
3. It is contended that there is delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. for which no plausible explanation is coming forth and the petitioner being armed with Sota allegedly gave a Sota blow on the face of the injured person and the injury being simple so the offence against him does not fall within the prohibitory clause so .the petitioner, therefore, is entitled for the concession of bail.
4. This bail, was opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
5. After having heard the learned counsel of both sides, I have also gone through the relevant law. In my view the offence with which the petitioner is charged falls under the definition of section 337(iii) and (iv) as in this case Ghayr Jaifah injury has been caused by which the bone has been exposed and '' at is said to cause "Midihah". The Mudihah injury is liable to Daman and the fonder can also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a m which may extend to five yells as Ta'zir. The case of the petitioner to some extent is identical with Baqir Ali 'accused who has since been released on bail. In my view the petitioner is entitled to the same concession on the principle of consistency as well.
6. Taking in view the above-noticed facts and circumstances of this case. I direct that the petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds e in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./L-78/L Bail granted.