1990 P Cr (PLP)
SHAFQAT alias MITHOO and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAFQAT alias MITHOO and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 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 1990 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: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (SHAFQAT alias MITHOO and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Pervaiz Aftab for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/109/34
Injured suffered three injuries on his person, one of which was grievous and other two were simple
Sufficient material existed on record to connect accused with commission of offence which fell within prohibitory clause
Accused petitioners were alleged to have inflicted injuries on vital part of the body
Accused petitioners, thus were not entitled to bail simply on ground that injuries attributed to them had been declared simple
Bail application was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioners have applied for post-arrest bail in a case registered against them vide F1R. No. 124/89, dated 8-5-1989 under section 302/109/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Mian Chunnu, District Khanewal. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant alongwith Ch. Shamoon Oaseer M.PA. were coming back from the house of Sharif Lambardar alongwith Rehmat Masih and Justinen Javed. The petitioners, who were armed with sticks alongwith co-accused who was carrying iron bar raised Lalkara that Shamoon Qaseer M.PA. should be taught lesson for his opposition being M.PA. Thereupon each of the accused inflicted injury on the head of the victim. Learned counsel for the petitioners has sought bail on the ground that the petitioners have been involved in this case in a mala fide manner out ulterior motive due to political rivalry. Further states that the injuries attributed to the petitioners had been declared simple. Furthermore it has been argued that in the medical report the doctor has not declared the same as dangerous to life. Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail and has stated that the injuries have been infected on the vital part of the body. I have considered the arguments of the parties. It is true that the injured suffered three injuries on his person, one of which had been declared grievous while the other two had been declared simple. Simply on this ground that since the injuries attributed to the petitioners had been declared simple, they are not entitled to be released on bail. There is sufficient material on the file to connect the petitioners with the commission of this offence which falls within the prohibitory clause. In the circumstances of this case when the petitioners are stated to have inflicted injuries on the vital part of tire body, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion and accordingly the bail application is dismissed, N.H.Q./S-597/L Petition dismissed.