1989 PLP 4810 (MLD)
ATTA MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4810 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | ATTA MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4810 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4810 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4810 (MLD) (ATTA MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rabnawaz Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 28th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 307 & 148/149‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Accused's fires had not injured anyone‑‑Two of co‑accused with similar allegations were already released on bail‑‑Case was not fixed for trial nor there was any possibility of the same to be fixed in near future‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Waqar Azeem for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioners seek bail in the case registered against them and others at Police Station Musakhel, District Mianwali on 26‑7‑1988 under section 302/307/148/149 P.P.C.
2. According to F.I.R. The petitioners while armed with guns had fired shots at the complainant, along with Muhammad Nawaz accused on the Lalkara raised by Muhammad Hayat and Shah Jehan their co‑accused. None of the shots fired, however, struck the complainant. Mst. Daulat Khatoon a sister of the complainant who stepped forward to save the complainant, was struck by the shot fired by Muhammad Nawaz, as a result of which she fell down and died later. Motive for the occurrence was civil litigation between the parties.
3. Bail is being sought by the petitioners on the grounds that they are Military personnel and had not participated in the occurrence; that even according to the prosecution the shots alleged to have fired by them, had neither struck the deceased nor any of the P.Ws; that although guns were planted on them yet the said guns had not tallied with any empty; and that they are in jail since after their arrest but the case has not been fixed for trial so far.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that their participation in the occurrence shows that they had common intention to commit the crime.
5. It appears from the F.I.R. that the shots allegedly fired by the petitioners had not struck anyone. Two of their co‑accused Shah Jehan and Muhammad Hayat who also had not caused injuries either to the deceased or to the P.Ws. already stand released on bail. They are in jail since after their arrest but the case has not been fixed for trial so far, nor is there any possibility of the same being fixed for trial in the near future. In the circumstances, a case for bail appears to have been made out. This petition, is therefore, allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rupees twenty thousand each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Asstt. Commissioner, Mianwali. Copy dasti on payment of usual charges. S.A./A‑784/L Bail allowed.