MLD 1989

1989 PLP 841 (MLD)

SARWAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 401/B of 1989, decided on 6th March, 1989.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 PLP 841 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J
Parties SARWAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 841 (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 841 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 841 (MLD) (SARWAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑

Representation

  • Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.307, 324 & 148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑ --Injuries on vital parts of body specifically attributed to accused, declared grievous‑‑As many as nine injuries caused with sharp‑edged weapons‑‑Crosscase cancelled and no complaint filed against complainant party‑‑Bail declined in circumstances. Farooq Bedar, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioners. Farooq Bedar, Addl. A.‑G. for the State. Sarwar and Mushtaq alias Kalu petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them and others under sections 148, 307 and 324/149, P.P.C.

2. In the occurrence which took place on 29‑7‑1988 at 6 p.m. Ahmad Ali P.W. suffered injuries at the hands of the petitioners and their co‑accused. Sarwar petitioner was armed with a Khanjar, gun and razor while Mushtaq petitioner was armed with a Chhuri, gun and razor. The part attributed to the petitioners was that they gave one Chhuri blow each to Ahmad All hitting his chest and back, respectively, and thereafter shaved his moustaches and eye‑brows with their razors when he was lying unconscious.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that according to the F.I.R. Mushtaq petitioner had given a Chhuri blow on the back of Ahmad Ali but no such injury finds mention in the medico‑legal report. He further submits that in the same occurrence Muzaffar Hussain, cousin of the petitioners, suffered six injuries, out of which injury N0.3 was declared grievous and a case was registered against the complainant party, therefore, it is a case of counter‑version. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioners are in jail for the last more than six months and the challan has not been submitted in Court so far. The learned Additional Advocate‑General on the other hand, submits that the crosscase has since been cancelled having been found false and no private complaint has been filed, therefore, there is no cross‑version in the field. He further submits that injury No.1 on Ahmad Ali injured was a stab wound on the left side of back of chest which has been specifically attributed to Mushtaq petitioner. It is further submitted that the challan will be filed in Court within a week.

4. Having gone through the material available on the record, I find that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no force. Injury No.1 on Ahmad Ali P.W. was a stab wound on the left side of back of chest. This injury has been specifically attributed to Mushtaq petitioner. Injury No.2 was a stab wound on front of chest. This injury is attributed to Sarwar petitioner. Both these injuries were on the vital part of the body and were declared grievous. Ahmad Ali injured had as many as ten injuries, out of which nine were by sharp edged weapon. It is a case of merciless beating. Admittedly the crosscase has been cancelled and no complaint has been filed against the complainant party. The material collected by the investigating agency prima facie links the petitioners with the commission of offence with which they have been charged on the circumstances, I am not inclined to admit the petitioners to bail at this stage. The petition is dismissed. S.A./S‑376/L Bail declined.