1979 P Cr (PLP)
ALLAH DITTA AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1979 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal, J |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA 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 1979 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 1979 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Javid Iqbal, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 P Cr (PLP) (ALLAH DITTA AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- C. M. Latif Rawn for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498-Bail-First petitioner alleged to have inflicted a kassi blow on deceased's neck and second petitioner stated to have held deceased while asleep-No necessity there being of holding deceased while asleep part ascribed to second petitioner exaggerated-Second petitioner admitted to bail but first petitioner's prayer for bail rejected. Muhammad Ali Naqvi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 631/B of 1972, decided on 3rd May 1978. -- S. 498-Bail-First petitioner alleged to have inflicted a kassi blow on deceased's neck and second petitioner stated to have held deceased while asleep-No necessity there being of holding deceased while asleep part ascribed to second petitioner exaggerated-Second petitioner admitted to bail but first petitioner's prayer for bail rejected. C. M. Latif Rawn for Petitioners. Muhammad Ali Naqvi for the State. In continuation of my order dated the 5th of March 1978, learned counsel for the State has produced the record. It appears that Muhammad Amir deceased was admitted to D. H. Q. Hospital, Darya Khan in a serious condition on the 2nd of July 1976, when he made a statement on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered in the instant case against the petitioners under section 307/34, P. P. C. Learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that Muhammad Amir remained under treatment in the hospital until the 7th of August 1976, when he was discharged. Thereafter, he was again admitted at D. H. Q. Hospital Sargodha on the 18th of August 1976, and died on the 19th of August 1976, of pneumonia. The contention is that Muhammad Amir deceased died as a result of the illness of pneumonia and not because of the injury on his neck. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has read before me the opinion of the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased which is to the effect that pneumonia had resulted from the neck injury caused to the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the report of the Investigating Officer dated the 10th of July 1976, under section 173, Cr. P. C. when he submitted the challan. He wants me 'to draw the conclusion that both the petitioners pleaded that they were innocent, in the course of investigation, but the challan against them was sent up only because the complainant party had insisted that they were the culprits and also because their names had been mentioned as culprits by Muhammad Amir deceased in his dying statement. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides carefully. It is stated by Muhammad Amir deceased in his dying declaration that he had water dispute with Allah Ditta and Muhammad Saeed petitioners. While he was asleep in the field, his kassi was lying nearby. Allah Ditta petitioner picked up the kassi and caused him an injury on the neck while Muhammad Saeed petitioner held him. The occurrence was also witnessed by Abdur Rehman, Shakoor and Ghulam Rasool P. Ws. The petitioners ran away leaving the kassi behind when the P. Ws. raised an alarm. From the narration of the occurrence it appears that the part ascribed to Muhammad Saeed is only that he held the deceased in the instant case. As the blow on the neck with a kassi is attributed to Allah Ditta petitioner only, it has been nrgued that even if the prosecution version is to be considered as correct, the part ascribed to Muhammad Said petitioner is exaggerated as there was no need to hold a man who was already asleep so that the other could cause an injury with a kassi blow on his neck. It is evident that the kassi blow on the neck of the deceased is attributed only to Allah Ditta petitioner. Hence no case for bail is made out so far as Allah Ditto! petitioner is concerned. As for Muhammad Saeed petitioner, without commenting on the merits, I admit him (Muhammad Saeed petitioner) to bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Bhakkar. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that about 22 months have passed and yet the trial of the petitioner was not within sight. Learned counsel for the State points out that the trial of the petitioners is likely to be fixed by July/August 1978. I am directing the Sessions Judge concerned to fix date of the trial of the petitioners as expeditiously is possible. With these observations this petition is disposed of. Bail granted.