1986 PLP 2466 (MLD)
NAZEER AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2466 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | NAZEER AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2466 (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 1986 PLP 2466 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2466 (MLD) (NAZEER AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Bar‑at‑Law for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Bail, grant of Accused named in F. I. R.‑‑Two injured witnesses implicating him‑‑Accused causing simple injury to deceased with hatchet‑‑No direct motive shown‑‑Question of motive and nature of injury, relating to merits of case could not be gone into at bail stage‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. Yusuf Ali Khan; Bar‑at‑Law for the Complainant. Mst. Yasmin Saigal for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner alongwith three others stands charged with the murder of Khadim Hussain deceased and for murderously assaulting Inayat Bibi and Mansha on 17‑5‑1985 with spear and a hatchet. The petitioner was armed with a hatchet and is alleged to have caused injury on the hand of the deceased.
2. Bail is pleaded on the ground that the injury attributed to Nazir Ahmad petitioner is simple in nature and further that he is not directly involved with the motive and further that the nature of the injury suggests that it was not caused with hatchet.
3. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant have opposed the application. According to them the petitioner is vicariously liable because he actively participated in the occurrence.
4. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is alleged to have caused a hatchet injury to the deceased. The contentions that he had no direct motive for the crime and further that the injury found on the hand of the deceased was not characteristic of hatchet essentially relate to the merits of the case which cannot be gone into at this stage. The petitioner is implicated by two injured eye‑witnesses in the offence. In these circumstances, I do not consider him entitled to bail and accordingly dismiss his application. S. A. Petition dismissed.