1987 PLP 1663 (MLD)
AMANAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1663 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | AMANAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1663 (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 1987 PLP 1663 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1663 (MLD) (AMANAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Akmal Salimi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 10th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Penal Code (XL V of 1860), Ss.307, 326 & 148/149--Bail, grant of--F.I.R. delayed by 7 days--Accused in jail for more than 31 months--Grievous injury not specifically attributed to anybody- Co-accused already on bail--Bail granted in circumstances. Farooq Amjad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. Akmal Salimi for Petitioner. Farooq Amjad for the State. Date of hearing: 10th February, 1987. The petitioners, who have been arrested in 'a case registered against them and two others, under section 307/326/148/149, PPC, at Police Station Chuchak, District Okara, seek bail on the grounds that the FIR was lodged after delay of seven days, that only one out of the two persons alleged to have been injured in the occurrence, was found to have suffered one grievous injury, which has not been assigned specifically to anyone of the accused and that the occurrence had happened at the spur of the moment and there was no previous ill-will or enmity. Learned counsel contended that no explanation has been given in the FIR about the injuries suffered by Muhammad Hanif, a co-accused of the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the delay in the FIR has been explained, that it has been specifically stated in the FIR that Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Hussain each had given one blow on the head of Shahadat and that it was not a case of sudden fight, rather the assault was launched after premeditation, with regard to the injuries of Muhammad Hanif, learned counsel contended that the medical certificate shows that he was examined at 3 p. m. while Bambanwali Civil Dispensary, where Muhammad Hanif was examined, was at a distance of about six miles from the place of occurrence.
3. The FIR admittedly was lodged after a delay of seven days. Although it is stated therein that the delay had occurred because' the complainant was busy in looking after the injured PW and also for the reason that the accused party had been beseeching them for compromise, still the fact of the case having been registered after seven days remains on record and will have to be considered during trial after recording of evidence. The petitioners are in jail since more than 31 months. The only injury declared grievous has not been specifically apportioned to anybody. The co-accused of the petitioners have already been granted bail. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioners also. They shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds in the su of Rs.20,000 each, with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Trial Magistrate, Okara. S.A./A-102/L Bail granted.