1989 PLP 4080 (MLD)
BASHIR SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4080 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | BASHIR SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4080 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4080 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4080 (MLD) (BASHIR SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Nadeem Saqlain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 307 & 148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Grievous injury on person of accused was not mentioned in F.I.R.‑‑Accused remained admitted in different hospitals‑‑Counter‑case regarding same occurrence was also registered‑‑Three co‑accused mentioned in F.I.R. were found innocent and were got discharged by police‑‑Case being that of further inquiry bail was allowed in circumstances. Waqar Azeem for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. Nadeem Saqlain for Petitioner. Waqar Azeem for the State. Bashir Shah petitioner is involved in a case registered against him and some others with Police Station Lala Musa Sadar, District Gujrat, for offence under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. vide F.I.R., dated 9‑1‑1989. According to the allegations contained in the F.I.R., the first informant's mother Mst. Iqbal Bibi owned eleven Marlas of land in the village. On 9‑1‑1989 at about Peshiwela, first informant's mother and brothers went to the said land to clear it in order to fill it with earth, in the meanwhile the petitioner armed with Lathi and other armed with different weapons, came and opened attack by raising a Lalkara that they would teach them a lesson for taking possession of the said land. The petitioner is alleged to have caused a Sota blow to Zarif Shah on his head, which was followed by other co‑accused of the petitioner. Zarif Shah in pursuance of the said injuries died at the spot. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that out of seven accused three have already been discharged by the police as innocent. Contends that the petitioner also received a grievous injury on his head which resulted in 1complete loss of eye‑sight from one side, but that injury has neither been explained in the F.I.R. nor in the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Contends that the petitioner side also got a case registered under section 307, P.P.C. with regard to the same occurrence, therefore, it has become a case of further inquiry appertaining the petitioner to the concession of bail. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State. According to him, the petitioner was declared absconder as he was avoiding his arrest, therefore, is not entitled to the concession of bail. 2. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. According to the F.I.R., no injury on the person of the petitioner is mentioned. The petitioner received a grievous injury according to the certificate produced by learned counsel. He remained admitted in different hospitals and lastly was admitted in D.H.Q. Hospital, Rawalpindi in the Department of Neurosurgery. Since a counter‑case with regard to the same occurrence has also been registered, therefore, it is yet to be determined which side was the aggressor. The police has not accepted the story as given in the F.I.R. because it got three accused mentioned therein discharged being innocent. The non‑mentioning of a grievous injury on the head of the petitioner by the first informant or any of the witnesses also makes it a cage of further inquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, concerned. SA./B‑150/L Bail allowed.