2004 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 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 2004 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: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ameer Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324
Bail, grant of-- Further inquiry
Injury though was allegedly caused by accused with a fire-arm but it was on non-vital part of body of victim and accused had not repeated the shot though victim was at his mercy
Accused was under detention for about six months
Case against accused being of further inquiry, he was entitled to concession of bail
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Mumtaz petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.100/02, registered on 3-10-2002 in Police Station Noorpur, District Khushab under section
324. P.P.C.
2. The occurrence had taken place on the same day i.e. 3-10-2002 at 9 a.m. According to the F.I.R. Muhammad Mumtaz accused who was armed with a .12 bore gun had raised Lalkara and thereafter had fired a shot at the complainant with the intention to kill him and which hit on his right shin and he fell down. Thereafter, Mumtaz accused fled away towards his Dera while waiving his gun. In the F.I.R. a mention was also made of the motive incident.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. The injury attributed to the petitioner is on a non-vital part of the body of the victim. Admittedly, the shot was not repeated by him. He is stated to have been arrested in this case on 4-10-2002. As such he has been under detention in this case for about six months Although the injury was allegedly caused with a fire-arm, yet as mentioned above, it was on a non-vital part and the accused had not repeated the shot although the victim was at his mercy. Under the circumstances of the case and in the light of the authorities reported as Muhammad Arshad v. The State 1997 Crl.LJ 433 and Muhammad Riaz v The State 2000 Cr.LJ 681, it is clearly a case of further enquiry and thus the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly the bail application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-584/L Bail granted.