2006 P Cr (PLP)
MADAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MADAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 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 2006 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: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (MADAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Munsif Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/34
Fire shot by accused had caused injuries on the right elbow of complainant, but it could not be ignored that he repeated fires 2/3 times and subsequent fires had missed their target
Accused, in circumstances, had the intention to kill complainant
Weapon of offence had also been recovered
Single person had been named responsible of causing injury to complainant
Nearly one year had passed, but the trial had not concluded
Bail petition was dismissed with direction that Trial Court must conclude the trial within specified period in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.,-- The petitioner filed this bail application in F.I.R. No.25 of 2005, dated 4-2-2005, under sections 324 and 34, P.P.C. at Police Station Atta Shaheed District Sargodha.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., the allegation against the, petitioner is that he made a fire with pistol which hit on the right elbow of the complainant. He repeated 2/3 fires but the complainant escaped the subsequent fires.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only one fire hit the complainant which is on non-vital part of the body. He submits that age of the petitioner at the time of occurrence was 16 years and 9 months. He submits that no empty of pistol was recovered from the scene of occurrence and the petitioner is already behind the bars for nearly one year.
4. Nobody is present on behalf of the State. However, the police official who brought record assisted the Court in the perusal of the same. According to the record, the petitioner was arrested on 15-2-2005. Recovery of a pistol has been effected from him. According to the record, the age of the petitioner is 21/22 years.
5. I have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. It is true that a fire shot by the petitioner caused injuries on the right elbow of the complainant but it cannot be ignored that he repeated fires 2/3 times, luckily subsequent fires missed their target. Therefore, it cannot be safely concluded at this stage and he did not have intention to kill. Similarly, the weapon of offence has also been recovered. The single person has been named responsible of causing injury to the complainant. On the other hand, nearly one year has passed but the trial has not concluded. 7 An view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this petition is dismissed with a direction that trial Court must conclude the trial within eight weeks after receiving this order. The office is directed to convey these orders to the trial Court concerned. H.B.T./M-251/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.