1990 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 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: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Talib H. Rizvi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307
Accused allegedly caused a knife injury in the abdomen of the injured
F.I.R. was delayed by 22 days
Parties had effected compromise
Bail was allowed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Riaz Ahmad Khan for the State. The brief facts of the present bail petition are that an F.I.R. No.238 dated 18-7-1989 was registered at Police Station Sadar Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh under section 307, P.P.C. against the present petitioner by the complainant, Bashir Ahmad.
2. According to the F.I.R. the petitioner is alleged to have inflicted a knife injury on the abdomen of one Muhammad Azeem, the nephew of the complainant. The motive for the offence is said to be the decision of the Panchait against the accused for which he blamed the injured Muhammad Azeem.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends for bail tin the following grounds:- (i) That there is an inordinate delay of 22 days, as the F.I.R. was registered on 18-7-1989 whereas the incident is alleged to have taken place on 26-6-1989, and there is no satisfactory explanation for the said delay. (ii) That the parties have effected a compromise and that therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail. In this respect reliance was placed on 1989 P Cr. L J 1852. (iii) Thai the petitioner has been in custody for the last almost six months and that he is no longer required by the police and that his further detention shall serve no useful purpose.
4. The learned counsel for the State opposes the bail but failed to refute the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.In view of what has been stated above, as there is delay of 22 days in the registration of the complaint and as the parties have effected a compromise and A an affidavit to that effect has been placed on the record, therefore, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh. SA./M-1870/L Bail allowed.