1996 PLP 1342 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ alias FAKU and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1342 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Falak Sher, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ alias FAKU and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1342 (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 1996 PLP 1342 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Falak Sher, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1342 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ alias FAKU and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/452/324/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ No overt act whatsoever had been ascribed to one accused while the acclaimed exhortation to other accused was merely a proverbial "Lalkara" and that too after the occurrence‑‑‑Accused were alien to the alleged motive ‑‑‑Challan had been submitted in the Court and the accused were no more required by the Investigating Agency‑‑‑Said contentions were not dislodged by the prosecution which, prima facie, had constituted sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the involvement of accused in the offence charged‑‑‑Accused were allowed bail in circumstances. Riaz Lone for the State. Rana Ijaz Ahmed Khan for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/452/324/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ No overt act whatsoever had been ascribed to one accused while the acclaimed exhortation to other accused was merely a proverbial "Lalkara" and that too after the occurrence‑‑‑Accused were alien to the alleged motive ‑‑‑Challan had been submitted in the Court and the accused were no more required by the Investigating Agency‑‑‑Said contentions were not dislodged by the prosecution which, prima facie, had constituted sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the involvement of accused in the offence charged‑‑‑Accused were allowed bail in circumstances. Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner. Riaz Lone for the State. Rana Ijaz Ahmed Khan for the Complainant. Post‑arrest bail is being sought in the case registered vide F.I.R. No.265 of 16‑7‑1995 under sections 302/452 and 324/34, P.P.C at Police Station Sadar, Hafizabad inter alia alleging trespass by Muhammad Ashfaq alias Faku petitioner alongwith his father Chishti Khan and the principal accused Anwar Saeed equipped with pistol and .222 rifles with Bashir Khan stationed beyond the exit around 8‑15 a.m.; Anwar Saeed pioneering the assault fired rifle shots landing on the complainant's father's right upper limb, his mother Ghulam Fatima's neck and abdomen; at which juncture his sister Mst. Nasra intervened to whom Chishti Khan caused fire‑arm injuries at the right ear, chest, ribs and thigh where after, the former repeated the shot landing on Mst. Zubaida Rani's right thumb; subsequent whereto Bashir Khan exerted the assailants to do away with the complainant's father's entire family for the suspected reporting against Anwar Saeed accused.
2. Contending that no overt act whatsoever has been ascribed to Muhammad Ashfaq alias Faku while the acclaimed exhortation to Bashir Khan is merely a proverbial Lalkara and that too after the occurrence who are even alien p' to the alleged motive, and with the submission of challan are no more required by the investigating agency.
3. Which has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as the complainant reiterating the prosecution story without dislodging the contentions urged; which prima facie, constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiring into the petitioners' involvement in the offence charged, thus are allowed bail upon furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑35/L Bail allowed