1994 P Cr (PLP)
ALI SHER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALI SHER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (ALI SHER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324
Accused after having come prepared armed with a pistol had, prima facie, attempted to commit "Qatl-i-Amd" of the complainant in the Court premises where a clerk of Court had also received injuries
Accused had been arrested at the spot with the pistol
Accused was named in the promptly lodged F.I.R. with the specific role assigned to. him in the commission of the crime which fell within the prohibitory clause of 5.497, Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
Gul Bahar Korai for AA.-G. for the State. Applicant Ali Sher wants to seek bail in Crime No.59 of 1993 of, Police Station City Jacobabad. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per F.I.R. are that on 20th July, ' 1993 at 9-00 hours, the complainant Mir Kharos had come alongwith his Massat namely Gordil to attend the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad and were sitting there for the call of their case. Applicant Ali Sher, co-accused Hakeem, Abdul Rahim, Shah Muhammad, Abdul Ghafoor with whom complainant party has a dispute were sitting near the mosque in the Court premises and were also looking at the complainant party with anger, when at about 8-15 a.m. there was a call in the Court on which complainant, and Gour Dil went to the room of the Reader of the Court where it is alleged that applicant came there having a country made pistol with him and then he challenged the complainant that he would not be spared and saying so fired from his pistol at the complainant but the complainant lied down and the fire hit one Clerk Iftekhar Awan, who fell down, raising cries and thereafter accused alongwith his pistol started running away while complainant and P.W. Gourdil chased him. They saw that four persons were running ahead of the complainant and in the meantime bodyguard of 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Jecobabad namely P.C. Ghulam Akber aimed his Klashnikov at the person having pistol and directed him to stop and then he (Ghulam Akber) apprehended the person with pistol while other persons succeeded in running away. Complainant then found that he had pellet injuries on his buttock, left arm and was bleeding from the wounds. Complainant party then also saw that Clerk Iftekhar Ahmed Awan had also fire-arm injuries on right side of the shoulder and neck and was bleeding. Meanwhile S.H.O. City Police Station, Jecobabad Sahib Ali appeared there on a Government vehicle who apprehended accused/applicant and then took the complainant and injured Iftekhar Ahmed Awan to the hospital for treatment from where, the complainant was taken to police station for report. The police after usual investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the accused/applicant. Bail application was moved in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jecobabad for applicant but the same was rejected vide order, dated 13-12-1993. Therefore, he has approached this Court with the same prayer. I have heard Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/accused, who has contended that as the injuries on the person of complainant Mir and P.W. Iftekhar Ahmed Awan are simple in nature and that the intention is to be gathered from the act of the applicant/accused as he had fired once, therefore, it can be presumed that he has not attempted to commit Qatl-e-Amd of the complainant. The learned counsel has also relied upon case of Idrees alias Maria v. The State N L R 1982 Cr. L J 183(1), wherein 497/498 bail for offence under section 307/34, P.P.C., injury attributed to the petitioner already declared as simple, question of application of section 307 needed further enquiry. Bail granted. Another authority 1987 P Cr. L J 1033 bail 497, 498 bail in a case for offence under section 307, P.P.C. granted on the ground that injuries sustained by the victim were certified by M.O. to be simple in nature. I have perused the authorities which are quite distinguishable and are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. I have also heard Mr. Korai learned counsel appearing for the AA.-G. for the State, who has opposed the prayer for grant of bail. The accused/applicant is alleged to have fired from his pistol in an attempt to commit Qatl-e-Amd of complainant Mir Kharose. I would like to reproduce section 324 of Q&D Ordinance:-- "
324. Attempt to commit Oatl-eAmd.-- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that, if he by that act cause Qatl, he would be guilty of Qatl-i-Amd, shall be punished with imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine, and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender would be liable to the punishment provided for the hurt caused." In this case, the accused/applicant has come prepared all along armed with a pistol and has- prima facie attempted to commit Qatl-i-Amd of the f complainant in the premises of the Court of law and one Iftekhar Ahmed Awan, the Clerk of the Court has also received the injuries who has no concern whatsoever with the parties, thereafter he is alleged to have been arrested on A the spot with pistol by the bodyguard of the 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Jecobabad namely P.C. Ghulam Akber. Accused/applicant has been named in the F.I.R. which is lodged without any delay and specific role has been assigned to him in the commission of the crime. In the above facts and circumstances, the case of the accused/applicant prima facie is made out for offence under section 324, which comes within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. as such no case for 8 bail is made out, and the application was rejected by a short order, dated 7-7-1994. These are the reasons for the same. N.H.Q./A-1480/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.