2003 PLP 2296 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 2296 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2296 (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 2003 PLP 2296 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 2296 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Mumtaz Ahmad Gillani for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.387A(ii)l34
F.I.R. showed that accused had inflicted Sota blow on the head of complainant and thereafter his co-accused inflicted two Sota blows to the complainant which hit on his head in the middle and the abdomen
Medical examination of the complainant showed that one injury was found on his person
Conflict in circum, stances existed in narration in F.I.R. and Medico Legal Report of the complainant
No specific injury of other injured was attributed to the accused
All such facts had rendered the case of the accused as one of further inquiry under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.
Offence alleged against the accused did not fall within prohibitory clause of 5.497, Cr.P.,C.
Grant of bail in such like cases was a rule and refusal. an exception while no exceptional circumstance existed in the case to warrant refusal- --Accused was behind the bars for the last six months and was not a previous-convict
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Ahmad Nadeem Chandia for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad, the petitioner has sought for bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 118 dated 24-4-2002 under section 337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Dajal, District Rajanpur.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 19-4-2002 at about 12-00 noon, he while armed with Sota alongwith his co-accused Zulfiqar with Sota and Kanir with Sota in furtherance of their common intention had caused injuries to the complainant Noor Ahmed and Muhammad Afsar.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that he alongwith his co-accused wanted to avenge their insult caused about 3/4 months prior to the same.
4. The bail has been sought by him on the ground that he has been falsely roped in, that according to the F.I.R. he and his co accused had inflicted injuries to the complainant while only one injury was found his person on his medical examination; that similar is the position of the injuries of the other injured Muhammad Afsar and this conflict in the version in the F.I.R, and the MLR of the injured persons renders the case against him as one of further inquiry; that he is behind the bars for the last about six months; and that he is previous non-convict.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that injury was found on complainant's body as per his MLR.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of record.
7. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner had inflicted-Sota blow hitting on the head of Noor Muhammad complainant and thereafter his co-accused Kamir inflicted two Sota blows to him which hit on his head in the middle and abdomen and Zulfiqar I inflicted him Sota blow hitting on the back I side of his head. On his medical examination, h one injury was found on his person. So, apparently there is a conflict in the narration I in the F.I.R. and the MLR of the complainant. While no specific injury of Muhammad Afsar is attributed to him. All these facts have rendered his case as one of further inquiry and so is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. Besides than this the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
9. The grant of bail in such-like cases is a rule and refusal an exception, while no exceptional circumstance is there to warrant refusal. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about six months and previous non convict.
10. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition is, therefore, accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum or Rs.50',000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction or the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court. H.B.T./M-1684/L Bail granted.