1983 P Cr (PLP)
FAQIR HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAQIR HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS — Petitioners 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) (FAQIR HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sohrab Aslam for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Petitioners allegedly launching murderous assault on their victim but gunshot attributed to them hitting lower part of body
No recovery made from petitioners and their case also appearing similar to co-accused already bailed out
Petitioners allowed bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
A case has been registered under section 307/326/148/149, P. P. C. against the petitioners, on the allegations that they launched a murderous assault on Maqbool Ahmad P. W. and fired at him with their respective fire-arms. As per F. I. R., petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were armed with guns whereas petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 had pistols with them. The guns shots hit the injured P. W. on his feet and leg whereas the pistol attributed to petitioner No. 5, injured his shoulder.
2. Muhammad Hussain, petitioner No. 3, was allowed bail under Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36/B-83, by my learned brother Gulbaz Khan, J. on 19th January, 1983. To his extent the bail application has become infructuous.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Bail is solicited on the ground that petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were declared innocent by the local Police and that their case is similar to that of Muhammad Hussain, co-accused. As regards Zulfiqar, the contention is that the injury ascribed to him was found simple and thus there was no intention to cause the death of the injured P. W.
4. The bail application has been opposed on behalf of the State and the complainant, and it is urged that according to the investigation of the Crime Branch all the petitioners were found guilty. As regards the motive for commission of the offence, it is stated that the injured P. W. was to appear as a witness against the petitioners in a criminal case and he having refused to oblige them, was assaulted by them.
5. The Investigating Officer admits that no recovery has been made from petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and
4. Their case also does not appear to be dissimilar to that of Muhammad Hussain. The gun-shots attributed to them are also on the lower part of the body. I feel that they are entitled to bail.
6. As regards Zulfiqar, petitioner, his case is distinguishable from that of the other petitioners. Both the local Police and the Crime Branch, found him guilty. Recovery was also made from him His bail application is, therefore, disallowed.
7. In this view of the matter, petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4, namely, Faqir Hussain, Sardar Khan and Asghar Ali, are allowed bail, provided each one of them furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Shiekhupura. Order accordingly.