1983 P Cr (PLP)
Asst: NAZIRAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Asst: NAZIRAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (Asst: NAZIRAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Akhtar Hasan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497 & 498--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34-Bail Mutder
Main culprit according to First Information Report brother of accused (woman)-Case of accused covered by proviso to S. 497 (I)-Bail granted.
Judgment & Decree
A case is registered against Mst. Naziran alias Rani petitioner alongwith her brother Bashir and one Muhammad Aslam alias Achhu under section 302/34, P. P. C. at Police Station, Naurang, District Sheikhupura on the 22nd of February, 1974. The allegation against her is that she gave a hatchet to her brother Bashir and with that hatchet Bashir attacked Hanif deceased her husband, and murdered him. In other words, according to the F. I. R. the main culprit in his case is Bashir. It is contended by learned counsel on her behalf that firstly Mst. Naziran petitioner was a woman and was entitled to bail for her case was covered by the proviso to section 497 (1), Cr: P. C. It is next contended that no other overt act has been attributed to her brother who is stated to have used the same for the murder of deceased. It is submitted that she herself did not cause any injury to the deceased and her handing over the hatchet may be an exaggeration on the part of the interested witnesses who were hostile towards her because she did not have good relations with her husband, the deceased. Lastly it is contended that the case was registered against the petitioners on the 22nd of February, 1974, and now it is since more than one year that the commitment proceedings have not yet been completed.
2. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. The case of the petitioner is covered by the proviso to section 497 (1), Cr. P. C.,'1.IB therefore, admit her to bail subject to her furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only). with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Resident Magistrate, Ferozewala. This petition stands disposed of. Bail granted.