1994 P Cr (PLP)
M. AFZAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | M. AFZAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 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: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (M. AFZAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Ghulam Hussain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 341/506/148/149/337-A(iii)
Offences for which the accused was charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Accused was behind the bars for the last more than three months and his trial had not yet commenced
Matter had been reported to the police after a considerable unexplained delay
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for the State. Date of hearing: 6th December, 1993. The petitioner who is involved in a case under sections 341/506/148/149, 337-A(iii), P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No. 84/93, dated 24-8-1993, registered at Police Station Kundian, District Mianwali.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co -accused while armed with deadly weapon attacked the victim as a result of which he received injuries and he was also deprived of Rs.5,000.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the F.I.R. was lodged after delay of four days which remained unexplained. The occurrence took place in Mauza Kundian whereas the injured P.W. Zafar Iqbal was examined by Medical Superintendent, District Headquarter Hospital, Mianwali, which is 25 k.ms. away from the place of occurrence reason being that he procured M.L.R. on his own choice from the said doctor leaving the Government Dispensary situated at Village Kundian where the occurrence took place due to ulterior motive. The fracture of nozzle bone is manipulated, the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, so the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer, has conceded this fact that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause but submitted as the petitioner caused the fracture of nozzle bone so his bail was refused while the bail of his co-accused was accepted by the learned trial Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the offences for which the petitioner is charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause and the petitioner is behind the bars since 30-8-1993. The trial has not yet commenced. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel, for the petitioner that the matter was reported to the police after a considerable delay which remained unexplained. Keeping in view all the circumstances, the case for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out. I direct that the petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Mianwali. N.H.Q./M-1386/L Bail granted.