1994 PLP 1795 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1795 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1795 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1795 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1795 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian M. Jamal for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S.498--Penal Code (V of 1860), S. 337-A (ii)
Accused who had been injured in the incident had approached the Station House Officer of concerned police station under the direction of the High Court given in his Constitutional petition and moved an application in writing for registration of a criminal case
Investigating Officer retained the said application on record but did not take any action thereupon which fact, prima facie, lent support to the plea of mala fides on the part of the Police
Accused himself having been injured in the incident, question as to which of the parties was aggressor was a matter of inquiry
Interim pre-arrest bail allowed to accused earlier was confirmed in circumstances. Sh. Muhammad Rahim for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner is involved in a case under section 337-A (ii), P.P.C. registered vide F.I.R. No.342/93 dated 5-12-1993 at Police Station Makhdoom Rashid, Multan and after having failed to secure bail before arrest from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has approached this Court for bail before arrest.
2. Ad interim bail before arrest was allowed to the petitioner on 1214994 and the Investigation Officer was summoned with record for today.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was injured in the incident and he was medically examined by the doctor. Since the police was not registering a criminal for case against the opposite-party, he filed a writ petition (W.P.5361/93) for a direction to the local police for registration of the case. This writ petition was disposed of? with the observation that the petitioner should? appear the before? the S.H.O with an application in writing who shall entertain the same and proceed therewith in accordance with law. It is submitted that the requisite application was moved by the petitioner before the Investigation Officer who retained the same on record but did not take any action thereupon. The fact that the petitioner indeed moved Such an application is admitted by Said Hussain, A.S.I. present in Court. This prima facie lends support to the plea of mala fides on the part of the local police as urged by the 'learned counsel for the petitioner today. The question as to which of the party was aggressor in the incident is a matter of inquiry and the petitioner having been injured therein find that he has made out a case for grant of bail before arrest. The interim bail allowed to him on 12-1-1994 is accordingly confirmed. N.H.Q./M-1621/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Interim bail confirms