1987 P Cr (PLP)
MAZHAR HUSSAIN alias GUDDOO and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | MAZHAR HUSSAIN alias GUDDOO and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (MAZHAR HUSSAIN alias GUDDOO and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Karamat Nazir Bhandari for Petitioners
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/325/148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused remaining behind bars since registration of case and challan not yet submitted‑‑Bail allowed. Muhammad Mansha for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2811/B of 1987, decided on 7th August, 1987. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/325/148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused remaining behind bars since registration of case and challan not yet submitted‑‑Bail allowed. Karamat Nazir Bhandari for Petitioners Muhammad Mansha for the State. On the refusal of one Shaukat to sell bricks on credit, the accused party attacked him. The petitioner Mazhar alias Guddu is alleged to have caused a blow on the little finger of the right hand of victim Rafiq. Petitioner Tahir is alleged to have caused a soti blow on the elbow of Rafi, whereas Shaukat co‑accused is alleged to have caused a blow on the right knee of Rafiq. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners Mazhar alias Guddu and Tahir that the case is not covered by the provisions of section 307, P.P.C. but falls within the purview of section 325, P.P.C which is punishable for 7 years' R.I. It is further stated that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause, so the petitioners are entitled to bail. The case was registered in June, 1987 and the petitioners are still behind the bars and the challan has also not yet been submitted. As far as the merits of the contentions of the learned counsel as to whether the case falls under section 307, P.P.C. or under section 325, P.P.C, I would refrain to give any finding on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice either side. However, in the circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners provided they furnish security in the sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty‑five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Jhang. M.Y.H./M‑360/L Bail granted