2001 PLP 638 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 638 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Kayara, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 638 (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 2001 PLP 638 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Kayara, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 638 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ijaz Ahmad Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/ 109/34‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Allegation against accused was that of conspiracy alone ‑‑‑Co‑accused with similar allegation had already been released on bail by the High Court‑‑‑Fact whether the accused had participated in the conspiracy was yet to be proved‑‑‑Rule of consistency was applicable to the case of accused‑‑‑Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. Ijaz Ahmad Bajwa, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ijaz Ahmad Awan for Petitioner. Ijaz Ahmad Bajwa, Addl. A.‑G. for the State. Petitioner seeks bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No.664 of 1999 on 13‑10‑1999, Police Station Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad, under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C.
2. Allegation unfolded in the First Information Report are that one Farman Ali and Pervez injured deceased with, fire‑arm weapons, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. It is alleged that accused Farman and Pervez caused the death of Shaukat Ali on the abatement of present petitioners and one co‑accused Ashiq Ali. Motive of occurrence is that Ashiq Ali co‑accused was slapped and forbidden by the deceased not to come in the chowk. It was stated that the occurrence has taken place due to the conspiracy by the petitioner alongwith Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Iqbal etc.
3. Bail was rejected‑ by Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala on 12‑5‑2000. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that only allegation against the petitioner is that of a conspiracy and further Muhammad Hussain co‑accused in similar allegation was allowed bail by this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail.
5. It is yet to be proved whether the petitioner participated in the conspiracy and following the rule of consistency, because the allegation against him are similar, petitioner is entitled to the bail.
6. For the reasons, I accept the application and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided furnishing his bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation. N.H.Q./M‑466/L Bail granted.