1993 P Cr (PLP)
and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Akram Awan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337-A(v)/34
Injuries received by the prosecution witness were not on his skull, but on his hands and legs according to medico-legal report and application of S.337(3)(v), P.P.C. prima facie being not free from doubt, case against accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Akram Awan for Petitioners. Qazi Muhammad Latif for the State. Date of hearing: 28th September, 1992. The petitioners who are involved in a case under section 337/A(v) read with section 34, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No. 34, dated 31-1-1992, Police Station Jhaal Chakian, District Sargodha, seek to be admitted to bail.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioners is that they while armed with deadly weapons attacked the complainant party, as a result of which Muhammad Aslam received injuries.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the case of the petitioners does not fall within the prohibitory clause as their case falls within the ambit of section 337-E and not under section 337-A(v), P.P.C. and the maximum sentence provided under the law is not more than seven years. He further submits that the petitioners are behind the bars since 19-7-1992 without any progress in the trial. The learned counsel urged that if the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception, and the present case does not fall within the exception. As the petitioners were previously released on bail by the learned trial Magistrate vide order, dated 24-4-1992. thereafter their bail was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order, dated 19-7-1992, since then they are behind the bars.
4. The learned counsel for the State has frankly conceded that the case of the petitioners does not fall within the ambit of section 337, subsection (3) clause (v), P.P.C. because there is no injury on the skull of the victim. All the injuries are on the hands and legs of the injured P.W.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find the case against the petitioners does not fall within the prohibitory clause, as application of section 337, subsection (3), clause (v) P.P.C. is prima facie not free from doubt because the injuries received by the injured P.W. are not on his skull, but according to the medico-legal report placed on the record, all the injuries are on the hands and legs of the injured P.W.
6. In view of the above discussion, the case for the grant of bail is made out. The petitioners are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./U-16/L Bail allowed.