1989 PLP 4808 (MLD)
ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4808 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafique Tarrar, J |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4808 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4808 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafique Tarrar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4808 (MLD) (ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam Hari for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 27th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S307/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑F.I.R. was delayed by 27 hours‑‑Two simple injuries on non‑vital parts of body were attributed to the accused‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Ch. Abdul Aziz for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Abdul Aziz for the State. Date of hearing: 27th June, 1989. Allah Ditta son of Fated Muhammad has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and his co‑accused Allah Ditta son of Mokha under section 307/34 P.P.C.
2. The prosecution version is that on 11‑1‑1989 at 9‑00 a.m. Allah Ditta petitioner and his co‑accused confronted Falak Sher near the house of one Chiragh and raised a Lalkara that he would not be spared. The petitioner then fired at Falak Sher complainant who escaped unhurt but Liaquat Ali was hit by the fire. He sustained injures on the left hand and left leg. Co‑accused Allah Ditta son of Mokha gave Sota blows to Abdul, brother of Falak Sher complainant. Motive for the occurrence was that the accused got a criminal case registered against the complainant but he was acquitted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a delay of 27 hours in lodging the F.I.R. for which no explanation has been offered and both the injuries of Liaquat Ali were simple and on non vital parts of the body. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.
4. I have perused the record and given my careful consideration to the submissions made at the bar. Liaquat Ali PW had two fire arm injuries on his person. Injury No. 1 was on the lower part of left fore arm and left hand and injury No. 2 on the outer side of upper part of left thigh. Both the injuries were on non‑vital parts of the body and were declared simple in nature. In the circumstances I feel inclined to the view that a case for the enlargement of the petitioner is made out. I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs. 25 000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Okara. SA./A‑786/L Bail allowed.