2002 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 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 2002 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- N.A. Butt for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Investigating Officer, during investigations observed that accused was not present at the time of occurrence and murder took place at his instance‑‑‑Witnesses had supported the prosecution version‑‑‑Medical report also supported the ocular account‑‑‑Bail was refused to the accused in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Ayub for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous, Application No. 2762/B of 2001, decided on 7th June, 2001. ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Investigating Officer, during investigations observed that accused was not present at the time of occurrence and murder took place at his instance‑‑‑Witnesses had supported the prosecution version‑‑‑Medical report also supported the ocular account‑‑‑Bail was refused to the accused in circumstances. N.A. Butt for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ayub for the State. The petitioner stands nominated accused in case F.I.R. No.356 of 2000 under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Mughalpura, Lahore. He is alleged to have fired a shot hitting the deceased on his eye and below the neck, where after the deceased was almost soaked in blood. Bail is sought on the ground that during investigation it was observed by the Investigating Officer that petitioner was not present, however, murder took place at his instance. It is conceded that complainant Muhammad Aslam and other witnesses namely Mubarak and Yasin have fully supported the prosecution case during investigation. It is also admitted that as per post mortem report the deceased did sustain injury on his eye and below the neck as alleged against the petitioner. In view of this evidence available with the prosecution, I do not find any ground to admit the petitioner to bail. This petition as such is dismissed. J.A.M./M‑905/L Bail refused.