Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SABIR KHAN VS Respondent: STATE
1997 M L D 2748
1997 M L D 2748
[Lahore]
Before Sh. Muhammad Zubair, J
SABIR KHAN‑‑‑Appellant
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1165‑B of 1994, decided on 3rd April, 1994
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/ 109‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused was named in the F.I.R. with the allegation of having caused a fire‑arm injury on the abdomen of the complainant on account of enmity‑‑‑Case of accused fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. in view of the provisions of S. 324, P.P.C. read with S. 337‑D, P.P.C.‑‑‑Bail was declined to accused in circumstances.
Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for Appellant. Imtiaz Ahmad Ch. for the State.
Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1994.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who is involved in a case under section 324 read with 109, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.704 of 1993, dated 20‑12‑1993, registered at Police Station Mughalpura, Lahore seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner as per F.I.R. is that he fired at the victim with his rifle which hit him on his belly.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the offence against the petitioner, at the most, may fall under section 337‑F(iii), P.P.C. which is punishable for three years, hence the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and he is entitled to bail. In addition to that, he submitted that the medical report belies the prosecution version, and the petitioner is behind the bars since 20‑12‑1993 without any progress in the trial, on this score also, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer has opposed this bail application.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The petitioner is a nominated accused and the allegation against the petitioner is that he caused firearm injury on the abdomen of the complainant who is an M.P.A., on account of the enmity mentioned in the F.I.R. itself. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not well‑founded in view of the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. read with section 337‑D, P.P.C., The case of the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause, so the petitioner is not entitled to bail. This petition stands dismissed.
N.H.Q./S‑457/L Bail refused.