2006 PLP 944 (YLR)
SHER AMEER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 944 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. A. Shahid Siddiqui, J |
| Parties | SHER AMEER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 944 (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 2006 PLP 944 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. A. Shahid Siddiqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 944 (YLR) (SHER AMEER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Masood Chishti, for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 14th December, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.336, 337-A(iv) & 337-F(i)
Bail, grant of-Medico-legal Report showed that half tooth of complainant was found to be missing
Under sections 334 & 336, P.P.C., if offender was fund to have caused Itlaf e-Udw or Itlaf-e-Salahiyat-e-Udw, it was mandatory for the Court to punish him with Qisas or Arsh as the case could be
Punishment with imprisonment being purely discretionary, prohibition contained in subsection (1) of S.497-Cr.P.C. would not be attracted
Occurrence appeared to be the result of sudden flare up of passions
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Aziz Ahmad Malik for Complainant. Ms. Samia Bashir for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.--Sher Ameer petitioner through this miscellaneous petition has sought bail in case F.I.R.No.77 dated 18-10-2005 registered at Police Station, Dullewala, District Bhakkar for offences under sections 336, 337-A(iv) and 337-F(i), P.P.C.
2. As per F.1.R., Rehmat Ali complainant accompanied by his brother Ehsan Ullah was busy in making a fence with sarkandas for his sheep. Sher Ameer petitioner came there. He abused the complainant and asked him as to why he was raising the fence on his land. The complainant paid Sher Ameer petitioner in the same coin upon which the latter went away. Shortly thereafter Sher Ameer again arrived with a Danda in his hand, which he inflicted on the face of the complainant. As a result of which half of his tooth was broken and the adjacent tooth became shaky.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the punishment for Iltaf-e-Salahiyat-e-Udw primarily makes the offender liable to Arsh which is 1/20th of the Diyat under section 337-U, P.P.C. Whereas under section 336, P.P.C. the sentence of imprisonment up to 10 years is discretionary, as such, the prohibition contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. shall not prevent this Court from releasing the petitioner on bail.
4. I have considered the arguments and have perused the record. According to the Medico-legal Report, half tooth of Rehmat Ullah complainant was found to be missing. Under sections 334 and 336, P.P.C. if the offender is found to have caused Italf-e-Udw or Itlaf-e-Salahiyat-e-Udw, it is mandatory for the Court to punish him with Qisas or Arsh as the case may be. The punishment with imprisonment is purely discretionary, therefore, the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C, shall not be attracted. The occurrence appears to be the result of a sudden flare up,. I, therefore, accept this petition and enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ilaqa/duty Magistrate. H.B.T./S-15/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.