1994 PLP 1677 (SCMR)
ABDUR RASHID ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MANZOOR AHMED and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1677 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUR RASHID ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MANZOOR AHMED and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1677 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1677 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1677 (SCMR) (ABDUR RASHID ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MANZOOR AHMED and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Younus Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 81h January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 24‑5‑1993 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 649‑B of 1993). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑‑Bail had been granted to accused by High Court on the ground that the solitary simple injury attributed to him on the outer side of left thigh of the deceased after the deceased had fallen down whether was the result of a direct blow from the blunt side pf the hatchet or, the same was due to fall, which required further inquiry‑‑‑No .illegality or irregularity having been found in the said reasoning, leave to appeal was refused accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order passed by the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court whereby. bail was granted to Manzoor Ahmad, respondent No. 1.
2. According to the F.I.R. due to altercation which had taken place ten to twelve days before the incident between Muhammad Anwar son of deceased Abdul Majid and Muhammad Riaz son of Muhammad Yaqoob. The accused, namely, Muhammad Ramzan armed with Bala, Abdul Ghafoor armed with Bala, Manzoor Ahmad armed with hatchet and Muhammad Yaqoob armed with Sota attacked then deceased and caused injuries to him on the head and the leg. After one day the deceased expired in the hospital. According to the F.I.R as Muhammad Ramzan caught hold of the handle of the cycle of the deceased and when he was getting dawn, Ramzan attacked with Bala which hit the deceased on his head. Abdul Ghafoor also atta4ed with Bala on the left side of the deceased's head. The deceased fell down upon which Manzoor Ahmad respondent No. 1 attacked him from the blunt side of the hatchet hitting the deceased on the outer side of the left thigh. This injury attributed to respondent No. 2 was declared simple in nature. The learned Judge taking into consideration that the solitary injury on the outer side of left thigh and its nature, suggest that he had refrained from using the sharp side and did not choose any vital part of the body of the de‑eased. The fact that the injury was caused on the outer part of the body after the deceased had fallen down, it required further inquiry as to whether the injury in question was the result of a direct blow from the blunt side of the hatchet or it was due to fall. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the reasoning of the impugned order. We, therefore refuse to grant leave. N.H.Q./A‑1154/S Leave refused.