1999 PLP 1468 (MLD)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1468 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1468 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1468 (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: 1999 PLP 1468 (MLD) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zafar Awan for Petitioner.
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Gondal for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324/148/149
Weapon allegedly used during occurrence was conventional such as hatchet and possibility that injuries attributed to accused could be self-suffered, could not be ruled out in view of report of Medical Board
Bail, in circumstances, was rightly granted to accused as case against accused was of further enquiry-- In absence of convincing ground to cancel bail granted to accused, same could not be cancelled.
Judgment & Decree
Zafar Awan for Petitioner. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Gondal for Respondent No.
1. Ahmad Naeem Qureshi for the State. This petition is moved for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal, in a case registered against them and others under sections 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.66, dated 16-7-1997 registered at Police Station Tammon, District Chakwal.
2. According to the F.I.R. the respondent Allah Ditta had given a hatchet blow on the head of Ghulam Muhammad complainant which caused injury No. 1 shown in the medico-legal report. It was kept under observation and later on it was found to be Shajjah-i-Mudiha'. A Medical Board was constituted for re-examination of the victim i.e. the complainant Ghulam Muhammad which submitted its report (Annexure-G) showing seven injuries on the person of the victim. Injuries Nos. l to 3 were stated to be inflicted with sharp-edged weapon whereas the rest were caused with blunt weapon. The Board was of the opinion that nothing could be said about the nature of weapon in respect of injuries Nos.l to
3. It was also observed that "if circumstantial evidence favour, possibility of self-suffering cannot be excluded".
3. Learned Court below taking into consideration the medical evidence and the nature of the injuries came to the conclusion that it is a case of further inquiry and admitted the respondents to bail. The cancellation is sought on the ground that the injury was caused on the head which is a vital part of the body and as such, the bail should have not been granted without any extenuating circumstance. Since there was no extenuating circumstance in this case, therefore, the respondents afore-named were not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and have gone through the record with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. The respondents are already on bail, the weapon used during the occurrence is conventional such as hatchet, the possibility that the injuries attributed to the respondents could be self-suffered cannot be ruled out in view of the report of the Medical Board. Therefore, without entering into the deeper appreciation about the merits of the case, it is enough to say that it is a case of further inquiry. The bail was rightly granted and there is no convincing ground to cancel the same. The petition is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./C-68/L Petition dismissed.