1998 PLP 1128 (MLD)
NASIB-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1128 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NASIB-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1128 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1128 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1128 (MLD) (NASIB-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Attaullah Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 337-A(2)
Accused was charged vide F.I.R. under S. 337-A(2), P.P.C for having injured petitioner/complainant by hitting him with back side of an axe whereas according to medico-legal report petitioner/complainant had been shown to have been injured with a sharp-edged weapon
Trial Court was justified in holding that case of accused was that of further enquiry and, thus, extended concession of bail to accused
Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
1968 SCMR 1168 ref. Attaullah Khan for Petitioner. I have gone through the judgment of the Zaila Qazi, Dir, at Pairmargara, recorded on 19-5-1997 and have perused the record of the case carefully, Respondent No. 1 Nazir Muhammad has been charged vide F.I.R. No. 124, dated 27-2-1997 registered in Police Station Ouch District Dir under section 337-K(2) for having injured the petitioner by hitting him with the back A side of an axe whereas, according to the medico-legal report the petitioner has been shown to have been injured with a sharp edged weapon. Resultantly, the Zaila Qazi/Sessions Judge was justified in holding that the case of the petitioner was that of further enquiry and to have extended the concession of bail to the petitioner. The apex Court of the Country in case Ijaz Ali Khan v. The State reported in 1968 Supreme Court (N.R) 1168, had held:
"The petitioner who is charged with the offence of murder has been refused bail by the Courts below from which he now seeks leave to appeal. On examining the facts appearing in the order of the learned Judge in the High Court we are inclined to the view that the conditions laid down in section 497, Cr.P.C. for refusing bail to the petitioner were amply fulfilled in this case. The petition is dismissed. " Accordingly I am of the view that this bail cancellation petition does not merit consideration and is dismissed in limine. A.A./25/P Petition dismissed.