1986 PLP (1) (MLD)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP (1) (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal, C.J. and Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP (1) (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 1986 PLP (1) (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Javed Iqbal, C.J. and Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP (1) (MLD) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Kamal Mufti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 426--‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑Accused armed with a Sota but part attributed to him was not that he used Sota but was stated to have held' deceased in Japha while others inflicted fatal blows at deceased‑‑Sentence suspended and accused admitted to bail. Malik Muhammad Yousaf for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 426--‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑Accused armed with a Sota but part attributed to him was not that he used Sota but was stated to have held' deceased in Japha while others inflicted fatal blows at deceased‑‑Sentence suspended and accused admitted to bail. Syed Kamal Mufti for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Yousaf for the State. JAVED IQBAL, C.J.‑In continuation of our order, dated 5‑4‑1986 we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Muhammad Hussain petitioner was stated to be armed with a Sota but the part attribute to him is not that he used Sota but on both occasions, he is stated 2 have held the deceased in Japha while the others inflicted fatal blow at the two deceased.
2. Since only Japha is attributed to Muhammad Hussain, petitioner, we suspend his sentence and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty‑five thousand only with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C . Kasur'.