2021 PLP 702 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 702 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Shahid Hameed Dar and Muhammad Qasim Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 702 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 702 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shahid Hameed Dar and Muhammad Qasim Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 702 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fahad-ur-Rehman Tipu Zafar for Petitioner.
- The State through Advocate General, N.W.F.P. v. Zubair and 4 others PLD 1986 SC 173; Muhammad Siddique v. The State and another 2014 SCMR 304; Nazir Ahmad and another v. The State and others PLD 2014 SC 241 and Ghulam Qammber Shah v. Mukhtiar Hussain and others PLD 2015 SC 66 ref.
- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to hint at any fresh ground, except for the fact that two recovery witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and he repetitiously insisted that the petition in hand may be decided on merits. It must be known by the learned counsel that two of the earlier petitions had been decided on merits and he needed a fresh ground to render this petition meaningfully sustainable, which was virtually non-existent herein, as evidence of two hostile formal prosecution witnesses generated no fresh ground in favour of the petitioner. Guidance in this regard may be had from "The State through Advocate General, N.W.F.P. v. Zubair and 4 others" reported as PLD 1986 SC 173, Muhammad Siddique v. The State and another (2014 SCMR 304), Nazir Ahmad and another v. The State and others (PLD 2014 SC 241) and Ghulam Qammber Shah v. Mukhtiar Hussain and others (PLD 2015 SC 66). Sans existence of any fresh ground, this petition is dismissed in limine.
Headnotes / Summary
The State through Advocate General, N.W.F.P. v. Zubair and 4 others PLD 1986 SC 173; Muhammad Siddique v. The State and another 2014 SCMR 304; Nazir Ahmad and another v. The State and others PLD 2014 SC 241 and Ghulam Qammber Shah v. Mukhtiar Hussain and others PLD 2015 SC 66 ref.
Judgment & Decree
This is the 4th petition on the subject, on behalf of the petitioner. One of the earlier ones, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6595-B of 2016, was dismissed as withdrawn after having been argued at length on 07.06.2016, the other one, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8788-B of 2016, was also dismissed as withdrawn on 30.06.2016, but without any arguments thereon, whereas, the last one, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10026-B of 2016, was dismissed on merits, vide order dated 04.08.2016.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to hint at any fresh ground, except for the fact that two recovery witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and he repetitiously insisted that the petition in hand may be decided on merits. It must be known by the learned counsel that two of the earlier petitions had been decided on merits and he needed a fresh ground to render this petition meaningfully sustainable, which was virtually non-existent herein, as evidence of two hostile formal prosecution witnesses generated no fresh ground in favour of the petitioner. Guidance in this regard may be had from "The State through Advocate General, N.W.F.P. v. Zubair and 4 others" reported as PLD 1986 SC 173, Muhammad Siddique v. The State and another (2014 SCMR 304), Nazir Ahmad and another v. The State and others (PLD 2014 SC 241) and Ghulam Qammber Shah v. Mukhtiar Hussain and others (PLD 2015 SC 66). Sans existence of any fresh ground, this petition is dismissed in limine. SA/M-23/L Bail declined.