1986 P Cr (PLP)
NAUROZE MASIH Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | NAUROZE MASIH Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (NAUROZE MASIH Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ejaz Anwar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 18605, 5.326‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑F.I.R. lodged with unexplained delay of 2 days‑‑Petitioner attributed a single heal injury to his victim, caused with a hatchet but cut neither through and through nor any fracture seen under such injury‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances. Nasim v. State 1970 P Cr. L J 674 ref. Masud‑ul‑Hassan Sabri for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nasim v. State 1970 P Cr. L J 674 ref. Ejaz Anwar for Petitioner. Masud‑ul‑Hassan Sabri for the State. Nauroze Masih petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him, his brother and father under section 326/34, P.P.C. The prosecution version is that on 3‑8‑1985 at about evening time the petitioner armed with a hatchet, his brother with a Chhuri and his father with a Sots confronted Shabbir Masih near the house of Barkat Masih, upon which he raised alarm attracting Feroze Masih complainant and Nazir Masih. They tried to rescue Shabbir Masih, upon which Nauroze Masih petitioner gave a hatchet blow to Nazir Masih which landed on his head. In the meantime, Mst. Ferozan Bibi also reached the spot. The co‑accused of the petitioner, namely, Shafi Masih and Rozveld, injured her with their weapons.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an unexplained delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. and the injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature as the cut was not through and through, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. Reliance is placed on Nasim v. State 1970 P Cr. L J
674. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.
3. I have gone through the relevant material. The occurrence took place on 3‑8‑1985 at about evening time and the F.I.R. was lodged on 5‑8‑1985 at 7.30 p.m, No explanation has been offered for this delay. The medico‑legal examination of Nazar Masih injured revealed an incised wound on the left parietal region, On the basis of X‑ray examination, this injury was declared grievous as a "cut line" was seen in X‑ray. The medico‑legal evidence does not show that the cut was through and through or there was a fracture under the injury. Prima facie, the contention of the learned counsel has sufficient force. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Sialkot. S.G.D. Bail allowed.