1986 PLP 173 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YASEEN and 11 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 173 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YASEEN and 11 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 173 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 173 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 173 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YASEEN and 11 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Q.M. Salim, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 13th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 8‑9‑1985 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 337/8 of 1985). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307, 382, 341, 436; 148 & 149‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Bail‑‑Accused applying for grant of bail directly to High Court which was rejected‑‑Accused willing o withdraw petition so as to file another application before trial Court on fresh grounds‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed as not pressed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, ACTG, C.J.‑‑Muhammad Yaseen and 11 others have filed petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 8‑9‑1985, dismissing their bail application.
2. The petitioner are accused of serious offences under sections 307, 382, 341, 436, 148 and 149, P.P.C. The facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on the night of occurrence the accused blocked the road and stopped a truck. Firing was resorted to with a view to instil fear in the minds of the occupants of the truck The driver and the conductor came out where after the accused sprinkles: oil on the truck (which is stated to be worth Rs.3,50,000), while Muhammad Afzal (absconder) set it on fire. The accused/petitioners applied for grant of bail directly to the High Court which was rejected vide the impugned order. Hence the present petition.
3. We have heard the petitioners' counsel for some time. He submitted that he wishes to withdraw the petition so as to file another application for bail before the trial Court on fresh grounds. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.