1995 P Cr (PLP)
SARFRAZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus WALI DAD and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SARFRAZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus WALI DAD and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) 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: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (SARFRAZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus WALI DAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghaus Muhammad Chaudhary for Petitioner,
- Masood Mirza for Respondent No.1.
- Learned counsel for the State accompanied by learned counsel for respondent fully supported the order of the learned Sessions Judge granting bail to respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Cancellation of bail-- Accused had allegedly instigated his sons by raising a Lalkara to kill the deceased
Role attributed to accused was that of Lalkara and he was empty handed
Accused also could not be shown to have misused the concession of bail by extending threats to prosecution witnesses
Bail granted to accused by Sessions Court was not recalled in circumstances.
S. 497/498
Accused only attributed the role of Lalkara is entitled to the concession of bail.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497/498
Accused only attributed the role of Lalkara is entitled to the concession of bail. Nazir Ahmad v. The State 1993 SCMR 1992 and Rafique Khan v. The State 1995 SCMR 343 rel. Ghaus Muhammad Chaudhary for Petitioner, Masood Mirza for Respondent No.1. Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh for the State. Sarfraz Khan petitioner has filed this petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. for the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.1 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha being accused in case F.I.R. No.41, dated 22-5-1994 under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Shah Nikdar.
2. According to F.I.R. respondent No.1 instigated his sons by raising Lalkara to kill Ghulam Mustafa as a result whereon the sons of the respondent opened fire and Ghulam Mustafa died at the spot. 3.b In support of the petition learned counsel argued that the respondent is attributed not the proverbial Lalkara but the role attributed to him is fatal. In support of his submissions he relied on Mubarik Shah v. The State 1986 SCMR 1681. It was next argued that respondent since his release on bail is misusing concession granted to hint by interfering into prosecution evidence by extending threats to the witnesses and as such his conduct amounts to misuse of concession of bail. Learned counsel for the State accompanied by learned counsel for respondent fully supported the order of the learned Sessions Judge granting bail to respondent No.1.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. The role attributed to the respondent is that of Lalkara and he was empty handed. It has by now well-settled that the accused only attributed Lalkara is entitled to the concession of bail. Reliance may safely be placed on the case of Nazir Ahmad v. The State 1993 SCMR 1992 and Rafique Khan v. The State 1995 SCMR
343. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable; to show or point out any act on the part of the respondent whereby he misused the concession of bail by extending threats to the prosecution witnesses. Learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, well within his jurisdiction to grant bail to the respondent. I, therefore, find no good reason to recall the order passed by learned Sessions Judge. Resultantly the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./S-426/L Petition dismissed.