1977 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1977 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Naveed Shahryar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑ S. 497(2)‑Private complaint giving a counter‑version of occurrence filed on behalf of petitioner‑Petitioner also sustaining injuries and contention that it was complainant party who attacked petitioner and his companions also finding support from statement of complainant made before Enquiry Magistrate‑Case, held, covered by subsection (2) of S. 497, in circumstances‑Petitioner admitted to bail. Ata‑ur‑Rehman for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 497(2)‑Private complaint giving a counter‑version of occurrence filed on behalf of petitioner‑Petitioner also sustaining injuries and contention that it was complainant party who attacked petitioner and his companions also finding support from statement of complainant made before Enquiry Magistrate‑Case, held, covered by subsection (2) of S. 497, in circumstances‑Petitioner admitted to bail. Sh. Naveed Shahryar for Petitioner. Ata‑ur‑Rehman for the State. This is an application by Muhammad Aslam son of Ghulam Shah under section 498, Cr. P. C. for the grant of bail. He is accused alongwith other persons of an offence under section 148/302/149, P. P. C. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that it was the complainant patty who had attacked the petitioner and his companions during which Said Ahmad and Aslam petitioner also received injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that a private complaint a counter‑version has also been instituted. He has also referred us to certain portions of the statement of Muhammad Ishaque complainant before the counsel
Inquiry Magistrate which go to support the contention of the learned Counsel.
2. The State has opposed the bail application.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the F. I. R. the counter‑version and the statement of Muhammad Ishaque complainant before the learned Inquiry Magistrate, I feel that there is some: substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and certain doubts have been cast on the prosecution case by the statement of Muhammad Ishaque complainant that the petitioner and one of his co‑accused had also sustained injuries during the occurrence. I think the case falls under subsection (2) of section 9' of the Cr. P. C. In this view of the matter I feel that prima facie the petitioner is not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner, is granted bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A. C., Gujrat. Petition allowed