2009 PLP 1330 (YLR)
EIDAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1330 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | EIDAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1330 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1330 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1330 (YLR) (EIDAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A(i)(ii), F(i), L(ii) & 504/34
Specific role of causing lathi blow on the head of the complainant had been assigned to accused, which was also supported by medical evidence
No malice, ill will or mala fide had been attributed to the Police
No case of bail before arrest having been made out, bail application was dismissed. Muhammad Ali Vistro along with Applicant. Muhammad Aslam Sipio, State Counsel.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.
Through this application applicant/accused Eidan son of Noor Muhammad Shaikh, seeks bail in Crime No.15 of 2007, of Police Station Mangli under sections 337-A(i), (ii), F(i), L(ii), 504, 34, P.P.C. The precise allegation against the applicant/accused is that he caused lathi below on the head of the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that various injuries have been caused to the complainant attributed to applicant and other two co-accused and it is yet to be determined that which of the injury has been caused by which accused. It is next contended that since the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, therefore, the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail. On the other hand learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail and has contended that specific role of causing lathi blows has been assigned to the present accused duly supported by medical evidence and motive is also evident from the F.I.R. therefore, no case of bail is made out and the application is liable to be rejected. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record. It appears that specific role of causing lathi blow on the head of the complainant has been assigned to the present applicant/accused which is also supported by medical evidence which reflect lacerated wound of 4 c.m. x 3 mm scull deep bone visible caused by a hard and blunt substance. No malice, ill will or mala fide has been attributed to the police. In the circumstances no case of bail before arrest is made out. The application is dismissed. H.B.T./E-5/K Bail refused.