Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Malik NISAR VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Allah Dino G. Memon Title: Malik NISAR vs THE STATE Case No.: Bail Application No. 85 of 1989 Date of Judgment:1989-02-07 Reported As: 1989 MLD 856 Result: Bail application rejected
Judgment ORDER The applicant is facing trial under section 307, P.P C. Before the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi Central, on the allegation that he had brought some girls to his house on 19-9-1988, and when it was objected to by complainant Muhammad Hashim and others, the applicant took out a Chhuri from the fold of his Shalwar and gave blow to complainant on his stomach, The Medical Officer has opined that the injury was grievous in nature. The' applicant moved an application for bail before the learned trial Judge but the same was rejected on 3-11-1988. After some time he repeated the application and it was rejected on 13-3-1988. It was contended by Mr. A.I Muhammad Sheth learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the injury does not fall within the ambit of section 320, P.P.C. And, therefore, it will not be a case of section 326, P.P.C. And as such the applicant was not entitled to bail. The learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon 1986 P Cr. L J 2716 and PLD 1989 Pesh. 31. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned A.A.-6. Appearing for the State, has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that on one hand the injury was on vital part of the body and on the other hand it was grievous in nature as opined by Medical Office. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. The Medical Certificate shows that the injury was on stomach and it was grievous in nature. No doubt as stated by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant the injured has remained in hospital for 14 days but medical certificate shows that the injury was grievous in nature and therefore, it will be premature to say anything or doubt the A veracity of the medical certificate as the case has not yet proceeded and Medical Officer has not been examined. In this View of the matter, I am of the considered view that no case for bail has been made out at this stage and application is accordingly rejected.
---
## Page 2
However, since the applicant is in custody from 19-9-1988, I direct the learned trial Judge to examine at least complaint and Medical Officer within two months, and thereafter the applicant will be entitled to repeat his bail application.