2004 PLP 23 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 23 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 23 (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 2004 PLP 23 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 23 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachar for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 25th June. 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused was also injured to occurrence and his medico‑legal report placed on record had shown one injury on his head while other was chip fracture of one finger‑‑‑Both parties had suppressed injuries of each other‑‑‑Police had also challaned the complainant party and case had become of two versions, ‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Sardar Mohabat Ali Dogar for the Complainant. Abdul Qayyum Anjum for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachar for Petitioner. Sardar Mohabat Ali Dogar for the Complainant. Abdul Qayyum Anjum for the State. Date of hearing: 25th June. 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was also received injuries in the instant case and his injuries were suppressed by the prosecution, that he was also medically examined through police on 18‑9‑2002, that one injury is on the head and other is chip fracture of one of the fingers of the petitioner that now there is a cross‑version and the complainant party has also been challaned and they are on bail and petitioner should also be met with tile same treatment.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that counter‑version is afterthought, that injuries on the person of the present petitioner are self‑inflicted and the offence falls within the ambit of section 497(1). Cr.P.C.:, however, learned State counsel submits that complainant party has also been challaned and according to him it is a case of two versions falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties Petitioner was also injured, his medico‑legal report has been placed on record, one injury is one the head while the other is chip fracture of one of the fingers. Both the parties have suppressed the injuries of each other, police has also challaned the complainant party and now it has become a case of two versions, therefore, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 (Fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./M‑2234/L Bail granted.