Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDULLAH VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 2246
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J
ABDULLAH ‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2627‑B of 1986, decided on 15th October, 1987.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/325 & 326‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Injury, declared to be grievous, admittedly caused with a blunt weapon‑‑Deceased empty‑handed and nothing to prevent petitioner from doing more harm than he did‑‑Petitioner also in jail for a period a little less than three months‑‑Contention that in facts and circumstances offence would fall under S. 325, P.P.C., which was not covered by the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. having substance, petitioner was allowed bail.
Syed Eshan Qadir Shah and Syed Ehtesham Qadir Shah for Petitioner.
Muhammad Bashir Mirza for the State.
ORDER
Abdullah petitioner is involved in a case under sections 324, 325 and 326 of the P.P.C. He has moved this petition for bail.
2. The F. I. R. version is that on 26‑5‑1986 at 10 a.m. the petitioner gave Dang blows to Allah Dad causing injuries on the head, back, eye‑lid of the right eye and left hand. A dispute between the accused and the victim over irrigation water is stated to be the motive for the offence.
3. According to the medico‑legal report Allah Dad injured had six injuries, out of which injury No.l was declared grievous as per the X‑ray report. This injury was on the left aspect of head. The remaining injuries were simple in nature.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that section 326 of the P.P.C. is not attracted and at the best the case falls under section 325 or 308 of the P:P.C. It is submitted that section 325 of the P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause and Section 308 of the P.P.C is bailable. Learned counsel further states that there is unexplained delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. and in view of the previous back ground of enmity false implication cannot be excluded.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
5. I have gone through the relevant material. Initially the case was registered under section 324 of the P.P.C. Later on, when the injury was declared grievous the offence was altered to section 326 of the P.P.C. Admittedly the injury was caused by a blunt weapon. Prima facie, intention to cause death cannot be inferred because the deceased was empty‑handed and if the petitioner wanted to cause more harm to him, nothing could prevent him from doing so. There is substance in the contention that the offence falls under section 325 of the P.P.C which does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The petitioner was arrested on 20‑7‑1986 and is in jail since then. In the circumstances I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Sargodha.
S.G.D./A‑341/L Bail allowed.