GULFAM vs State S — 2023 YLRN 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

GULFAM VS State S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(i), 337-F(iii) & 334---Shajjah-i-khafifah, mutalahimah, itlaf-i-udw---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Petitioner was under the allegation that he attacked upon the complainant and bit his right ear with his teeth and later inflicted a hammer blow which hit on the face of complainant---Obviously, tissue was not an organ nor it could be termed as limb; thus, considering helix and cartilaginous as limbs would amount to inflate the criminal liability of the petitioner---Even the doctor had not pointed out as to which of the limb was affected by above injury, therefore, said observation of doctor at this stage of the proceedings was not appreciated which would finally be thrashed by the Trial Court after summoning and examining the doctor---Applicability of S. 334, P.P.C., was under dense clouds in the circumstances---If missing tissue affected the functioning, power and capacity of any organ permanently then at the most offence under S. 336, P.P.C., "Itlaf-i-Salahivat-i-Udw" could be attracted but at present even such observation of doctor was also not available on the record--- Remaining offence under S.337-F(iii), P.P.C., was punishable upto three years which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497 of Cr.P.C.---On the face of it, the petitioner had made out a case for bail after arrest on the touchstone of further inquiry as contemplated under S. 497(2) of Cr.P.C.---Petitioner was behind the bars since 07.03.2022 without any progress in the trial, as such, he could not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period---Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

GULFAM vs State S — 2023 YLRN 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported