MLD 1989

1989 PLP 3712(1) (MLD)

KHALID HUSSAIN Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1364/B of 1989, decided on 23rd May, 1989.
Honorable Judges
Riaz Ahmad J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 PLP 3712(1) (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Riaz Ahmad J
Parties KHALID HUSSAIN Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑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 3712(1) (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 3712(1) (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 3712(1) (MLD) (KHALID HUSSAIN Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑

Representation

  • MA. Zaffar for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Investigating Officer had doubted participation of accused in occurrence‑‑Investigating Officer found that accused had not used any fire‑arm, though, he was present at scene of occurrence and placed him in column No.3‑‑Accused was ordered to be released on bail. Ali Muhammad Chaudhri for Complainant. Bashir Ahmad for the State.

Judgment & Decree

MA. Zaffar for Petitioner. Ali Muhammad Chaudhri for Complainant. Bashir Ahmad for the State. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner had indulged into firing. During the investigation, in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer has doubted the participation of the petitioner in the occurrence. According to the finding of the Investigating Officer, the petitioner had not used any fire‑arm, though, he was present at the scene of occurrence. In spite of this finding, the petitioner was placed in column No.3.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, and I have perused the relevant record. Case of the petitioner is covered by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, I direct, that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. fifty thousand with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Nankana. H.B.T./K‑176/L Bail granted.