2008 YLR 2007 (PLP)
PEERAL alias PEER BUX — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 YLR 2007 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Munib Ahmad Khan, J |
| Parties | PEERAL alias PEER BUX — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 YLR 2007 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 YLR 2007 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Munib Ahmad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 YLR 2007 (PLP) (PEERAL alias PEER BUX — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- 2. The learned Assistant Advocate-General submits that the applicant has been named in the F.I.R. and the poison Borbiturate has been detected and that the report is positive.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337-J
Factual position narrated in the F.I.R. needed further scrutiny as allegedly five persons were in the house including the parents of the complainant/alleged victim
Complainant lady as well as her parents could resist any move, but that had not been done nor any explanation in that respect had been given
F.I.R. had been registered after about one month and six days from alleged occurrence, whereas same could be registered on the very day of the alleged occurrence
Medical report had also revealed that no harm had been caused to the complainant; and nature of injury was to be ascertained after further investigation for application of S.337-J, P.P.C.
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Sarfaraz Khan Jatoi for Applicant. Mushtaq Ahmed Abbasi, Asst. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.--Learned counsel submits that the applicant has been involved by his wife only for the reason that the applicant was inclined to have second marriage and this has annoyed her, therefore, she with all intention and with consultation of her parents, has tried to involve him in this false case. He further submits that according to F.I.R., poison was allegedly administered on 4-9-2006 and that too in presence of father and mother of the complainant. He further submits that it is very strange that the complainant herself heard about mixing of poison in the tea and knowing that the tea contains poison, she drank that tea without resistance. He further submits that on the complaint of the lady, police referred her for medical examination on the day of alleged incident i.e. 4-9-2006 but she was examined on the next day which is reflected by the letter of the Government Hospital. He submits that the delay in examination has not been explained. The letter of the Government Hospital dated 5-9-2006 has also been seen, according to which, some poison was detected and was just cleaned by stomach wash.
2. The learned Assistant Advocate-General submits that the applicant has been named in the F.I.R. and the poison Borbiturate has been detected and that the report is positive.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and perusal of the record it appears that factual position narrated in the F.I.R. needs further scrutiny as there were allegedly five persons in the house including the parents of the complainant. The complainant lady as well as her parents could resist any move but that has not been done nor any explanation in this respect has been given. The F.I.R. itself has been registered on 10-10-2006 while alleged incident took place on 4-9-2006 and the complainant would have registered the F.I.R. on that very day which has not been done. It is also observed from the medical report that no harm has been caused to the complainant and nature of injury is to be ascertained after further investigation to apply section 337-J. In the circumstances, applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./P-36/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.