Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM SARWAR VS Respondent: STATE
1989 M L D 4193
1989 M L D 4193
[Lahore]
Before Rashid Aziz Khan, J
GHULAM SARWAR‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 958‑B of 1989, decided on 12th April, 1989.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/34‑‑Bail‑‑Accused named in First Information Report, was armed with .12 gun and had fired towards complainant but his shot missed and hit at forehead of a patient who just happened to be present in Dawakhana' of complainant‑‑Challan had already been submitted in Court and trial commenced‑‑While dismissing bail application direction was issued to trial Court to conclude trial within three months.
Ch. Irshadullah Chattha and Arshad Naveed Dogar for Petitioner
M. Iqbal for the State.
ORDER
A case under section 307/34 PPC stands registered against the petitioner and two others with Police Station Sangla Hill, District Sheikhupura, vide FIR dated 3‑6‑1988. The allegations levelled in the FIR against the petitioner are that he alongwith his co‑accused on 3‑6‑1988 at about 11 a.m., went to the Dawakhana of Hakim Azhar Hussain, the first informant; where said Hakim was busy in examining a patient, namely, Mst. Tasnim Akhtar. Some other persons were also present in the Dawakhana. 1n the meanwhile, co‑accused of the petitioner armed with 7 MM rifle, alongwith the petitioner who was also armed with .12 bore gun, came to the Dawakhana. On the Lalkara of Ghulam Rasool, co‑accused, the petitioner is alleged to have Fired which missed the first informant but hit Mst. Tasnim Akhtar on the forehead. The first informant also fired with his revolver ineffectively in self‑defence. The commotion attracted many people, therefore, the petitioner and his co‑accused ran away.
2. It is contended' by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is highly doubtful. Submits that the injury on the person of Mst. Tasnim Akhtar has been declared simple, therefore, the application of section 307 PPC is highly doubtful. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record. The petitioner is named in the FIR. He was armed with a .12 bore gun and fired. His fire‑shot injured one Mst. Tasnim Akhtar who just happened to be present in the Dawakhana of the first informant. The seat of injury is on the vital part, i.e., forehead. I am informed the challan in the case has already been submitted and the trial has commenced. In these circumstances, I think it will suffice if a direction to the trial Court is given to conclude the trial within three months. The petition is disposed of in the terms stated above.
M.Y.H./G‑257/L
Bail refused.