1994 PLP 1291 (MLD)
AKBAR ALI and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1291 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Khizar Hayat, J |
| Parties | AKBAR ALI and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1291 (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 1994 PLP 1291 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Khizar Hayat, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1291 (MLD) (AKBAR ALI and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Farrukh Mahmood for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 9th January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302/34
Accused had not caused any injury either to the deceased or to any prosecution witness-- Proverbial "Lalkara" only was attributed to one accused
Reasonable grounds did not exist to believe that accused were guilty of the offence punishable with ten years' R.I. and above--Accused were allowed bail in circumstances. Ch. Inayat Ullah Cheema for the Complainant Akhtar Ali Oureshi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is a petition for 8i'ant of bail on behalf of Akbar Ali and his son Akhtar Ali who stand arrested in case F.I.R. No.271/92, dated 2_10-1992, under section 302/34, P.P.C., Police Station Yazman, District Bahawalpur, registered at the instance of Altaf Hussain who is son of deceased Karam Dad, after their bail plea was declined by the lower Court.
2. According to the prosecution, Altaf Humain and his father Karam Dad had spotted some goats of the accused party damaging their Gawara crop. They went near the field and found Muhammad Tayyib, co-accused of the petitioners, manhandling Shahbaz, brother of complainant. At that time Muhammad Tayyib and Akhtar Ali were holding, Dangs while Akbar Ali and his son Arshad were, empty-handed. Meanwhile Arshad accused ran to. his house and brought a gun from there and at the instigation of Akbar Ali (petitioner) fired at and killed Karam Dad (deceased). It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that Akhtar Ali (petitioner) aimed a Danfl blow at Shahbaz but as the latter got aside it landed on the head of Akbar Ali (petitioner), his own father.
3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that they did not cause any injury to the deceased or the P.W. and, only proverbial Lalkara is attributed to) Akbar Ali (petitioner). It is further stated that tine petitioners are in jail since 10-10-1992 without trial, therefore, they are entitled to the grant of bail. The petition is opposed by the State counsel as well as by learned counsel for the complainant.
4. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly the two petitioners did not cause anti injury to the deceased or any P.W. Proverbial Lalkara only is attributed to Akbar Ali petitioner, who was allegedly injured at the hands of his co-accused (his own son). In the circumstances, I am of the view that there do not exist reasonable grounds for believing that petitioners are guilty of comnaittin9 the offence punishable with 10 years and above. Consequently, I hereby allow this petition and direct that the petitioners be released subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of trial Court. N.H.O./A-5,86/1 Bail allowed