1987 P Cr (PLP)
MANZOOR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | MANZOOR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 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 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (MANZOOR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 16th March, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Further inquiry‑‑Court entitled, to look at strength and weakness of prosecution case for purpose of bail‑‑Evidentiary value is to be considered ultimately by trial Court‑‑Complainant admitting that neither he nor two witnesses had seen occurrence‑‑Case of further enquiry, held, made out‑‑Bail granted. Syed Ehtesham Qadir Shah for the Petitioner. Irshad Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Ehtesham Qadir Shah for the Petitioner. Irshad Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 16th March, 1983. The petitioner was reported against, vide F.I.R. No. 90, dated 25‑5‑1982, Police Station Midh Ranjha, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha, for offence under section 302/307/34, P.P.C.
2. There were two alleged eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. One is Sadiq and the other Shera. Muhammad Nawaz the nephew of the deceased, Muhabbati is the complainant who is not a resident of the Chak.
3. On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed on police Zimni, dated 9‑6‑1982 which records the proceedings of investigation conducted on the same day. It stands established therefrom that Muhammad Nawaz complainant had admitted before the police that there was no eye‑witness present at the scene of occurrence but all the same insisted that the allegation was correct. It is further alleged that there was a previous blood‑feud as has been witnessed by the murder of the father of Manzoor petitioner. There is no recovery in the case and no independent corroboration forthcoming.
4. I feel that the Court is entitled to look at the strength and weaknesses of the prosecution case for the purpose of bail. The material produced by the police at the hearing does tend to show that the complainant had admitted that neither he nor the two witnesses has seen the occurrence. Whatever be the evidentiary value, it is for the trial Court to consider ultimately. But for the purpose of bail I think it to be a sufficient circumstances to make out the petitioner's case one, of further inquiry. I would accordingly admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand) with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Sargodha. H.A.K./4129/L Bail granted.