MLD 1989

1989 PLP 4085 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD SHARIF Petitioner Versus AMANULLAH Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1796/13 of 1989, decided on 18th June, 1989.
Honorable Judges
Riaz Ahmad, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 PLP 4085 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Riaz Ahmad, J
Parties MUHAMMAD SHARIF Petitioner Versus AMANULLAH Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4085 (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 1989 PLP 4085 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Ahmad, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4085 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF Petitioner Versus AMANULLAH Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑

Representation

  • Mian Sarfraz‑ul‑Hassan for Petitioner

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Affidavit was filed to the effect that accused was trying to subborn witnesses‑‑Police was not approached with regard to threats alleged to have been advanced by accusedInterference declined with order of Court granting bail.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Affidavit was filed to the effect that accused was trying to subborn witnesses‑‑Police was not approached with regard to threats alleged to have been advanced by accusedInterference declined with order of Court granting bail. Mian Sarfraz‑ul‑Hassan for Petitioner According to the statements of two witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., the respondent was shown to be empty‑handed and no part was assigned to him in the F.I.R. That is why, the respondent was allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

2. In support of this petition seeking cancellation of bail allowed to the respondent it is contended, that the respondent is trying to suborn the witnesses, and to substantiate the same, affidavits of some witnesses have been filed. To rebut the same, counter‑affidavits have also been filed. Police was not approached with regard to the threats alleged to have been advanced by the respondent. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the grant of bail allowed to the respondent. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. M.Y.H./M‑1529/L