1976 PLP 302 (SCMR)
SHAH NAWAZ alias SHAHU Petitioner Versus AKBAR KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1976 PLP 302 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Anwarul Haq and Muhammad Afzal Cheema, JJ |
| Parties | SHAH NAWAZ alias SHAHU Petitioner Versus AKBAR KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 302 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 302 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Anwarul Haq and Muhammad Afzal Cheema, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 302 (SCMR) (SHAH NAWAZ alias SHAHU Petitioner Versus AKBAR KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Riaz Anwar, Advocate and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri Advocate-on-record for Petitioner.
- Record for Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
AWARUL HAQ, J.‑The petitioner is aggrieved by an order made by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on 22‑9‑ 1975, whereby he allowed bail to the respondent, Akbar Khan, in, a murder case, mainly on the ground that it was admitted Oat the respondent has not used his rifle during the incident, and that out of nineteen witnesses; cited in the calendar only ten had been examined so far in tux inquiry proceedings, and the same were likely to take quite a long time. Learned counsel submits that although it was scatted in the F. I. R. that: the respondent did not fire with his rifle, yet he was consistently named as being present throughout the incident, thus sharing common intention with the other accused persons who caused the death of Allah Ditta deceased. It is neat submitted that out of seventeen witnesses, eleven have already been examined in the inquiry proceedings and therefore, it was not g, fit case for allowing bail on account of delay. In view of the facts stated in the F. I. R. the learned Judge in the High Court appears to have exercised his discretion correctly and we see no compelling reason to interfere with the same. We would accordingly dismiss this Petition Petition dismissed.