MLD 1995

1995 PLP 1252 (MLD)

FAIZ ELAHI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4176/13 of 1,994, decided on 20th October, 1994.
Honorable Judges
Mian Nazir Akhtar, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1995 PLP 1252 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Mian Nazir Akhtar, J
Parties FAIZ ELAHI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1252 (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 1995 PLP 1252 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Nazir Akhtar, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1252 (MLD) (FAIZ ELAHI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Mian Ahmad Sher Lali for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337‑H‑ii ‑& 337‑F.1‑‑‑Pre- arrest bail‑‑‑Confirmation of‑‑‑Case of two versions, and at earlier stage it could not be said with any amount of certainty as to which one was true‑‑ Accused was a woman who was also injured in occurrence and her right arm was fractured, in circumstances her case was covered by first proviso to S. 497, Cr.P.C. and she deserved concession of bail even without showing mala fides on part of police in matter of her intended arrest‑‑‑All other accused involved in the case had been allowed bail by Court below‑‑‑Interim pre‑arrest bail already allowed to accused was confirmed by the High Court in circumstances. Sheikh Afzal Hussain for the State. M.A. Khadim for the Complainant.

Judgment & Decree

Sheikh Afzal Hussain for the State. M.A. Khadim for the Complainant. The petitioner seeks pre‑arrest bail in a case registered against Mansha etc. vide F.I.R. No. 135, dated 6‑6‑1994 for an offence under sections 337‑H‑ii and 337‑F‑i, at P.S. Barrana, District Jhang.

2. According to the allegations made in the FIR, Mansha who was armed with iron rod inflicted 7 injuries to the petitioner including a grievous one on the right arm which was fractured. After about 6 days, counter‑version of Mansha was recorded. He alleged that, in fact, he was attacked by the petitioner alongwith her son named Waris and caused 6 injuries to him with a blunt weapon.

3. The petitioner's learned counsel contends that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple and fall in the category of Shajja Khafeefa, covered under section 337‑A‑ which is bailable being punishable with 2 years' imprisonment. He adds that the other injury on the head of Mansha was attributed to Waris son of the petitioner who has already been granted bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 22‑9‑1994. He also submits that there are two versions about the same occurrence and at this stage it cannot be said with certainty as to which one is true. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner is a woman and her case is covered by the first proviso to section 497 of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and the complainant submit that the petitioner inflicted as many as 8 injuries to Mansha with Danda who narrowly escaped death. They add that the petitioner had disappeared after dismissal of her petition for pre- arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge and is not entitled to concession of bail.

4. Admittedly, there are two versions of the same occurrence and at this stage, it cannot be said with any amount of certainty as to which one is true. The petitioner is a woman who was also injured in the occurrence and her right arm was fractured. Her case is covered by the first proviso to section 497 of the Cr.P.C. and she deserves concession of bail even without showing mala fides on the part of the police in the matter of her intended arrest. All the other accused involved in the case have been allowed bail by the Court below. S. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is accepted and the interim pre‑arrest bail already allowed to the‑petitioner vide order dated 10‑10‑1994 is confirmed. H.B.T./F‑183/L Petition accepted.