2005 PLP 1071 (MLD)
NAUSHER and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1071 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | NAUSHER and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1071 (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 2005 PLP 1071 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1071 (MLD) (NAUSHER and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/337‑F(i)/337‑L(2)/148/149‑‑‑Bail, refusal of‑‑Accused were armed with deadly weapons and had caused numerous injuries on the person of the injured prosecution witness‑‑‑Offence with which the accused were charged fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Bail was refused to accused in circumstances. Sohail Tariq for the State with Allah Ditta A.S.‑I
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/337‑F(i)/337‑L(2)/148/149‑‑‑Bail, refusal of‑‑Accused were armed with deadly weapons and had caused numerous injuries on the person of the injured prosecution witness‑‑‑Offence with which the accused were charged fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Bail was refused to accused in circumstances. Sohail Tariq for the State with Allah Ditta A.S.‑I Report summoned from the trial Court has not been received. In the earlier part of the day learned counsel for the petitioners had made submissions and left the Court with permission as he had to conduct a trial at Chunian. He had submitted that there is delay of 2 days in lodging the F.I.R. with no specific roles to the petitioners. He further submitted that according to F.I.R., the petitioners were armed with hatchets but Kassis have been recovered from them so it is a case of further inquiry.
2. Learned counsel for the State submits that both the petitioners are named in the F.I.R., hatchet was recovered from Nausher while Kassi was recovered from Nawaz, petitioner, in all there were 13 injuries on the person of the injured P.W., nine with sharp edge while four with blunt weapon and that despite direction of this Court legible copy of the MLR has not been placed on record.
3. Both the petitioners armed with deadly weapons caused numerous injuries on the person of injured P.W. Offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No ground for bail. Dismissed. N.H.Q./N‑12/L Bail refused.