P L D 1992 Peshawar 111 (PLP)
KARAM ELLAHI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1992 Peshawar 111 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/34, 337‑E (2)(b) & 337‑F (ii) as substituted by Criminal Law (Fourth Amendment) Ordinance (XXX of 1991)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Offence against accused would fall under second part of S.324, P.P.C. which in turn would fall under 5.337‑E (2)(b), P.P.C. and punishment for which is provided under S.337‑F(ii), P.P.C.‑‑‑Offence against accused did not fall under prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C: ‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal, J |
| Parties | KARAM ELLAHI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1992 Peshawar 111 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1992 Peshawar 111 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/34, 337‑E (2)(b) & 337‑F (ii) as substituted by Criminal Law (Fourth Amendment) Ordinance (XXX of 1991)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Offence against accused would fall under second part of S.324, P.P.C. which in turn would fall under 5.337‑E (2)(b), P.P.C. and punishment for which is provided under S.337‑F(ii), P.P.C.‑‑‑Offence against accused did not fall under prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C: ‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1992 Peshawar 111 (PLP) (KARAM ELLAHI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdullah Jan Mirza for Petitioner.
- Dates of hearing: 17th & 19th November, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/34, 337‑E (2)(b) & 337‑F (ii) [as substituted by Criminal Law (Fourth Amendment) Ordinance (XXX of 1991)]‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Offence against accused would fall under second part of S.324, P.P.C. which in turn would fall under 5.337‑E (2)(b), P.P.C. and punishment for which is provided under S.337‑F(ii), P.P.C.‑‑‑Offence against accused did not fall under prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C: ‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34 [as substituted by Criminal Law (Fourth Amendment) Ordinance (XXX of 1991)]‑‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑ Accused had been attributed the proverbial role of Lalkara and their vicarious liability for the offence was yet to be determined at the trial‑‑‑Bail allowed to accused by lower Courts was not cancelled in circumstances. Qazi Abdul Jalil for the State. Saeed Akhtar Khan for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
9. It would be appropriate to reproduce old section, 307, P.P.C. and new section 324 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance 1991 for comparative study hereunder:‑‑ "
307. Attempt to murder.‑‑ "
324. Attempt to commit Oatl‑I- Whoever does any act with such amd.‑‑Whoever does any act intention or knowledge and under with such intention or such circumstances that, if he by knowledge, and under such that act caused death, he would be circumstances, that if he by that' guilty' of murder, shall be act caused Qatl he would be punished with imprisonment of guilty of Oatl‑i‑amd, shall be either description for a term punished with imprisonment of which may extend to ten years, either description for a term and shall also be liable to fine; which may extend to ten years,, and, if hurt is caused to any and shall also be liable to fine, person by such act, the offender, and, if hurt is caused to any shall be liable either to person by such act, the offender imprisonment for life or to such shall be liable to the punishment punishment as is hereinbefore provided for the hurt caused." mentioned". It would be seen that in Part I of the new section for the word `murder"Qatl‑i‑amd' has been used and for `death"Oatl' has been substituted; the rest of the phrase is the same. In Part II of old section the offender was liable to life imprisonment for the hurt caused, whereas in the new section the offender shall be liable to punishment for the hurt caused, depending on the kind of hurt, the details of which have been given in other sections of the Ordinance. .
10. In this case the medico‑legal report of Mohammad Niaz complainant would show that he received incised wound 1‑1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the lateral side of the left upper arm, incised wound 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the chest, 2‑1/2" medial to left nipple, and an abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" on the palm of the left hand. This kind of injuries would fall within the definition of `Bali `ah', the punishment provided thereof is 'Daman' and imprisonment which may extend to three years as `Tazir'.
11. In my view the offence would fall, under second part of section 324 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 which in turn would fall under section 337‑E, subsection (2) (b) and punishment for which is provided under section 337‑F clause (ii). The offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause, therefore, the application for bail is allowed, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate.
12. As far as application for cancellation of bail against the 'two respondents in concerned they have been attributed the proverbial role and it would be seen at the trial whether they are vicariously liable for the offence or not. Hence this application is rejected. N.H.Q./1335/P Order accordingly.