1989 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Shabbir Raza Rizvi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Interim bail, grant of‑ Allegation against accused being that his sons had committed the murder of the deceased at his instance' and instigation‑‑Accused was allowed interim bail up to a certain date within which he was directed to move competent Court for bail. ‑
Judgment & Decree
Syed Shabbir Raza Rizvi for Petitioner. Muhammad Rafiq petitioner seeks pre‑arrest bail in a case under section 302/34/109, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Saddar Sheikhupura on 7‑12‑1988.
2. The prosecution case is that Dilshad and Kala sons of the petitioner at his instance and instigation committed the murder of Abdul Aziz deceased with fire‑arms over an election enmity.
3. It is stated that the petitioner's involvement is for ulterior motive aid mala fide reasons and that he was not alleged to be present at the scene of offence at the relevant time, nor is there any allegation of his direct participation in the crime. The only allegation against him is that Abdul Aziz had been murdered with his connivance.
4. He has approached this Court directly as according to him due to the presence of police he could not move the Court concerned. He seeks interim bail for a short period to enable him to move the competent Court.
5. Without going into the merits of the case, I admit the petitioner to interim bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R.(J) of this Court till.23‑12‑1988. The above concession shall lapse by the above date within which he shall apply to the competent Court for bail.
6. The application is disposed of. S.A./M‑1021/L Bail granted.