1986 P Cr (PLP)
FAZAL KARIM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mazharul Haq, J |
| Parties | FAZAL KARIM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mazharul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (FAZAL KARIM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Mahmood Ahmad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Pendency of appeal‑‑Simple injuries attributed to accused‑‑No motive having been alleged against accused‑‑Accused having been found innocent by police during investigation‑‑Suddenness of attack accepted by trial Court‑‑Question of application of S. 34 Penal Code, being matter to be considered bail was thus allowed. M. Saleem Shah for the State. Naveed Shahryar for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Appeal No. 642 of 1985, decided on 22nd December, 1985. ‑‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Pendency of appeal‑‑Simple injuries attributed to accused‑‑No motive having been alleged against accused‑‑Accused having been found innocent by police during investigation‑‑Suddenness of attack accepted by trial Court‑‑Question of application of S. 34 Penal Code, being matter to be considered bail was thus allowed. Kh. Mahmood Ahmad for Petitioner. M. Saleem Shah for the State. Naveed Shahryar for the Complainant. Muhammad Sarwar is the main accused in this case. He is an absconder. Fatal injuries have been attributed to him. Out of the four eye‑witnesses prosecution relied on evidence of three who are related to the deceased. Out of these three P.W. 1 Muhammad Siddiq attributed one simple injury on the nose of the deceased, to the petitioner. The remaining attributed two injuries which are also simple in. nature. There is no motive alleged against the petitioner. He was also found innocent by the police. The suddenness of the attack is accepted by the trial Court because the conviction is under section 304, P.P.C. The question of application of section 34, P.P.C. is a matter to be considered. Petitioner is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 (twenty‑five thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Kharian. S.A. Bail allowed.