1989 PLP 1783(1) (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMID Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1783(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1783(1) (SCMR)?
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 1783(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1783(1) (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMID Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Riyasat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 20‑6‑1988, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.620‑B of 1988). ‑‑‑S.497(5)‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Accused, alleged to have fired at deceased a number of shots‑‑Allegation was neither supported by the post‑mortem report nor any empty was recovered from the spot‑‑Order of bail, held. was proper.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑Ali Muhammad respondent along with five others has been charged under sections 302/149 and 148, P.P.C. for the murder of one Muhammad Rafiq. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 15‑8‑1987 at 9 a.m., the report of which was made the same morning after about an hour. Ali Muhammad respondent was arrested on 18‑8‑1987. His application for admitting him to bail was refused by the Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, on 9‑3‑1988, but on approaching the High Court the respondent was admitted to bail through the order under challenge.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the F.I.R. Ali Muhammad respondent was alleged to have fired at the deceased a number of shots. This allegation is, however, neither supported by the post‑mortem report nor any empty has been recovered from the spot. In this view of the matter, we do not find any defect in the order of the learned Single Judge.
3. The petition is dismissed. M.A.K./A‑516/S Petition dismissed.