1989 P Cr (PLP)
ISHTIAQ ALI alias KAKA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | ISHTIAQ ALI alias KAKA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (ISHTIAQ ALI alias KAKA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Afzal Wahla for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑First information report showed that accused had caused injuries to injured but injured lady in her affidavit took stand that injuries were caused to her by deceased‑‑Said lady not only had negatived version given in first information report but also supported story put on behalf of accused‑‑Accused in jail for last eleven months and trial had not vet started‑‑Accused admitted to bail in circumstances. Begum Surraiya Irshad Ahmad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner seeks bail in the case registered against him under section 302, P.P.C. at Police Station Lundianwala, District Faisalabad on 18‑11‑1987 at 4‑05 p.m. for an occurrence, said to have taken place on the same day at 7‑00 a.m.
2. According to F.I.R. Mst. Nanhi daughter of Rahmat Ali had come to the Dhari of the complainant and had requested for milking her buffalo at her Dera. The complainant sent his son Abdul Ghaffar for milking the buffalo of Mst. Nanhi. When Abdul Ghaffar was milking the buffalo, the petitioner came there and launched attack on him with a knife anti caused him injuries on the buttock, right arm and head. He also is alleged to have given injures with knife to Mst. Nanhi.
3. Motive for the occurrence, given in the F.I.R., is that the petitioner had illicit relations with Mst. Nanhi and he had entertained suspicion that Mst. Nanhi had now developed illicit relations with Abdul Ghaffar.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the whole story, given in the F.I.R., is false; that in fact the deceased had tried to forcibly commit Zina with Mst. Nanhi finding her alone at her Dhari and had caused her injuries an her resistance; that the petitioner who is relative of Mst. Nanhi happened to reach there per chance hearing cries of Mst. Nanhi and tried to save her, during which scuffle the deceased suffered injuries. In support of this version, affidavit of Mst. Nanhi (Mst. Bushra alias Nanhi) daughter of Rehmat Ali has been placed on record. The affidavit is purported to have been sworn on 13‑10‑1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the story given by the complainant is accepted, it has to be conceded that it would still be a case of family honour.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail. According to her Mst. Nanhi during the investigation had supported the F.I.R. version by snaking statement under section 161, Cr.P. C.
6. The occurrence even according to F.I.R. had taken place at the Dhari of Mst. Nanhi daughter of Rahmat Ali and Mst. Nanhi had suffered injuries during the occurrence. Although it is claimed in the F.I.R. that she was caused injuries by the petitioner yet she has taken the stand vide affidavit placed on record that the injures were given to her by the deceased. She has not only negatived the F.I.R. version but has also supported the story put on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is in jail for the last eleven months and the trial has not yet started. In the circumstances, enumerated above, reasonable grounds do not appear against the petitioner of having committed the offence charged with. This petition is, therefore. allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rupees twenty thousand with two sureties each in the like amount to . the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Jaranwala. M.Y.H./I‑93/L Bail granted.