1995 P Cr (PLP)
ABID alias ABI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ahmad Saeed Awan, J |
| Parties | ABID alias ABI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ahmad Saeed Awan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (ABID alias ABI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Yaqoob Sheikh for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑No, documentary evidence was placed on record to prove the age of the accused being less than 16 years ‑‑‑Abscondance of accused for more than one month prima facie; showed his participation in the commission of the offence‑‑‑Motive alleged in the F.I.R. appeared to be sound‑‑‑Complainant was not shown to have any enmity with the accused for his false implication‑‑‑Instigation ascribed to accused was not a type of proverbial Lalkara, but was fatal‑‑‑Bail was refused to accused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Yaqoob Sheikh for Petitioner. Abid alias Abi, petitioner, has moved this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. for post‑arrest bail being accused in case F.I.R. No.292, dated 5‑11‑1994 under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Nekapura District Sialkot.
2. According to F.I.R., on the fateful day, the present petitioner abetted his co‑accused Waseem to kill Zulfiqar Ahmed, the brother of the complainant. Due to pistol fire, the victim died at the spot and both the accused ran away.
3. In support of the application, it was argued that the petitioner is minor; no overt act is attributed to him; the guilt of the petitioner will be determined at the trial and that no recovery has been affected from the petitioner. On these premises, petitioner seeks the concession of bail.
4. The petition was vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. with the role of abetting and as such in the facts and circumstances of this petition, he is, not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record.
6. No document has been placed on record to prove that the age of the petitioner is less than 16 years; mere bald assertion cannot be made a ground for the grant of bail in a murder case. To remain absconder for a period of more than one month prima facie shows participation of the petitioner in the commission of offence. The motive alleged in the F.I.R. also appears to be sound as no reasonable or a person of lowly status in our society would coin up the story involving the family honour. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any enmity with the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in the commission of offence. The instigation ascribed to the petitioner is not a type of proverbial Lalkara but is fatal. I am, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case not inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑824/L Bail refused.