1989 PLP 842 (MLD)
SARDAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 842 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | SARDAR‑‑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 842 (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 842 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 842 (MLD) (SARDAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.307 & 148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Injuries kept under observation‑‑No result as to nature of injuries received from doctor even after six months‑‑Incomplete challan submitted m Court‑‑Accused in jail for more than six months‑‑Co‑accused already enlarged on bail‑‑Presumption would be drawn that injury was not declared grievous‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. M.R. Khokhar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.307 & 148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Injuries kept under observation‑‑No result as to nature of injuries received from doctor even after six months‑‑Incomplete challan submitted m Court‑‑Accused in jail for more than six months‑‑Co‑accused already enlarged on bail‑‑Presumption would be drawn that injury was not declared grievous‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner. M.R. Khokhar for the State. Petitioner seeks bail in the case registered against him and four others under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Pattoki, Ditrict Kasur.
2. According to F.I.R., the petitioner while armed with a gun had fired shots hitting. Abdul Ghafoor brother‑in‑law of the complainant on the right leg and also causing injury on the ankle of Muhammad Ali, his uncle. Two other persons were also injured during the occurrence but they were alleged to have been given injuries by the other accused.
3. Although it is stated in the F.I.R. that leg of Abdul Ghafoor was broken as a result of the shot fired by the petitioner, yet statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that according to medical report the said injury was kept under observation, has not been denied by learned counsel for the State. In fact, the Inspector/S.H.O. also on being asked, stated that no result was received from the doctor about the nature of injury, which initially was kept under observation. The JA injury noted on the person of Muhammad Ali P.W. was also kept under observation. The result about nature of the same has not been received so far. An incomplete challan has already been submitted to Court. It is more than six months since the occurrence has taken place. If there has been no communication about the nature of injury being grievous till today, presumption will have to be drawn that the injury was not declared grievous, unless, of course, rebutted by the medical opinion. The petitioner was arrested soon after the occurrence. He is, thus, in jail for the last more than six months. Three of his co‑accused have already been enlarged on bail. In the circumstances, a case for bail appears to have been made out, in case of the petitioner as well. This petition is, therefore, allowed. He shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. twenty thousand with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Chunian. SA./S‑377/L Bail allowed.