2003 PLP 1789 (MLD)
KHAIR MUHAMMAD alias KHAIROO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1789 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHAIR MUHAMMAD alias KHAIROO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1789 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1789 (MLD)?
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: 2003 PLP 1789 (MLD) (KHAIR MUHAMMAD alias KHAIROO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Jaffar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34
Bail, grant of-- Accused allegedly had fired at the complainant with pistol hitting him on his left side of the chin and left upper arm
Accused, in circumstances, had been ascribed injury on vital part of the body of the injured-- Offence under S.324, P.P.C. was apparently attracted against the accused
Motive was also ascribed to the accused
Offence alleged against accused being covered under prohibitory, clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C., his bail, application was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
2. Briefly the, allegation against him as per F.I.R. is that on 17-4-2002 at about 3-00 a.m. he (petitioner) armed with pistol had fired straight shot at the complainant hitting him on his left side of the chin and left upper arm.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that on 10th Muharrum-ul- Haram that year the complainant had given him (petitioner) soti blows. On grudge over the same, he alongwith others had committed the act complained of.
4. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in that he did not repeat the fire at the complainant and so the question of attraction of offence under section 324, P.P.C. against him needs serious consideration and in support of the same reliance has been placed upon the case of Muhammad Saleem v. The State (2001 MLD 681); that he is behind the bars for the last about one year; and that he is previous non-convict.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he had fired straight shot at the complainant at his vital part of the body like chin and from the same his intention to kill him is evident and hence the offence under section 324, P.P.C. is attracted against him; that motive is also ascribed to him; that the authority cited above is not applicable to his case; that the offence is covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and that the challan has been submitted in the Court.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
7. He allegedly with pistol had fired at the complainant hitting him on his left side of the chin and left upper arm. So, he has been ascribed injury on the vital part of the body of the injured. So, the offence under section 324, P.P.C. is apparently attracted against him.
8. The motive is also ascribed to him that on 10th of Muharrum-ul -Haram that year he was given soti blows by the injured/complainant. He had grudge over the same.
9. In these circumstances, the case-law referred to above is not applicable to his case as it is not a case on border line of accident or deliberate attempt on his part to do away with him (complainant).
10. The alleged offence is also covered under prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
11. The petition, therefore, is dismissed.
12. However, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of his case as expeditiously as possible. H.B.T./K-242/L Bail application dismissed.