1991 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 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: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mansoor-ur-Rehman Khan Afridi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(ii) [as added by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance (I of 1991), S.6j & 447
Co accused was allowed bail and it was yet to be determined whether or not it was accused who had broken teeth of complainant by hurling a brick on face of complainant- --Prosecution had conceded that injuries were caused to both parties as a result of free fight between parties and that complainant who had suppressed injuries suffered by accused and co-accused, had also been challaned under Ss.337-A(ii) & 447, P.P.C. and that complainant party prima facie had committed criminal trespass
Accused, in circumstances, was entitled to grant of bail.
Judgment & Decree
Abu-al-Fateh for the State. The petitioner, alongwith another co-accused, Muhammad Amin, is accused of offence under section 337(A)(ii) of Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1990, vide F.I.R. No.439, dated 22-12-1990, registered at Police Station Sadar Bhakkar.
2. According to the said F.I.R. the accused are stated to have injured the complainant, Altaf Hussain. The petitioner herein is specifically alleged to have broken the teeth of the complainant by brick batting.
3. The co-accused, Muhammad Amin, was allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar vide order dated 17-1-1991.
4. The learned counsel contended for the bail of the petitioner and submitted that the allegation is general in nature, and it is yet to be determined whether or not it was the petitioner who had broken the teeth of the complainant by hurling a brick on his face. Further submitted it was the complainant party who was the aggressor and that the injuries were caused to both the parties as a result of free fight on the aggression of the complainant party. Further submitted that the prosecution had mala fide concealed the injuries suffered by the petitioner and his cu-accused, being seven in number. Further submitted that as a counter-version of the petitioner and the evidence in support thereof, the complainant and his two co-accused have been challaned under section 337(A)(ii) Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1990 and under section 447, Pakistan Penal Code, therefore, argued that prima facie it was the complainant party who was the aggressor. Further pointed out that the complainant party hits since been released on personal bonds. S. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail petition and submitted that the complainant is stated to have suffered grievous injury, but confirmed that the complainant party has been challaned as stated above and that the injuries suffered by the petitioner and his co-accused were suppressed. Further conceded that the complainant party has also been challaned under section 337(A)(ii), Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1990 and 447, P.P.C., therefore, prima facie they had committed criminal trespass. '
6. In view of what has been stated above the petitioner is allowed bail in tile sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Bhakkar. H.B.T./M-3164/L Bail granted.