1983 PLP 1274 (SCMR)
MUSHTAQ AND ANOTHERS-Petitioners Versus SHAHZAD AKHTAR AND ANOTHER — Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1274 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ AND ANOTHERS-Petitioners Versus SHAHZAD AKHTAR AND ANOTHER — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1274 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1274 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1274 (SCMR) (MUSHTAQ AND ANOTHERS-Petitioners Versus SHAHZAD AKHTAR AND ANOTHER — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 30th April, 1983.
- Ch. Muhammad Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order, dated 16th March, 1983 passed by the Lahore High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 348/B of 1983). --Art. 185(3)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307--Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), S. 497-All accused acting in concert in pursuance of pre-planned design and had all come each armed with a chhuri-Cancellation of bail, held, justified...-Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURAIHI, J.‑Muhammad Hanif co‑accused and Mushtaq and Muhammad Iqbal petitioners allegedly attacked Shahzad Akhtar complainant and his brother Muhammad Ashfaq deceased with chhuris on 27‑8‑1982 at 6‑00 p.m. in the course of which the deceased received a fatal blow and the complainant an injury, at the hands of Muhammad Hanif co‑accused, while Shamshad, P. W. who had tried to intervene received a chhuri blow each from the two petitioners. The petitioners were allowed bail by the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the fatal blow ` was not attributed to them but on an application made by the complainant, the High Court cancelled their bail by its impugned order dated 16‑3‑1983. The High Court held the view that all the accused had acted in concert in pursuance of a pre‑planned design and that they had all corpe each armed with a chhuri.
2. After hearing learned counsel, we do not find any valid ground to justify an interference with the view taken by the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.