1983 PLP 1021 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Petitioner Versus TIE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1021 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Petitioner Versus TIE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1021 (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 1021 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1021 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Petitioner Versus TIE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th February, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the -order dated 21st December, 1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Misc. No. 2378/B-82).
Art. 185(3) read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497 & 498--Bail in offences under Ss. 302 & 307 read with Ss. 148 & 149, P. P. C.--Motive for crime consistently attributed to petitioner: who according to evidence played material role and recovery of unlicensed gun also attributed to him-Order of High Court refusing bail to petitioner not suffering from any error of law--Held, does not call for interference by Supreme Court in circumstances of case--Leave to appeal refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑ The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 21‑12‑1.982 whereby bail was refused to him in a case registered at Police Station Bhalwal, district Sargodha vide F.I. R. No. 182 dated 26‑7‑1981. The petitioner alongwith nine others was charged for offences under section 302/307/148/149, P. P. C. He was allegedly armed with 12 bore gun and had fired with it. During the investigation of the case another version of the prosecution case appeared for which an approver also appeared on the scene against the petitioner. The main ground on which the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed bail for the petitioner was that there were two versions of the prosecution case itself and in the two versions materially different roles were attributed to the petitioner making it a case of further inquiry. The High Court repelled this ground by holding that in both the versions the petitioner has been attributed the main role and an unlicensed gun had also been recovered from him. It was further held to be not a fit case for bail. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we find the motive for the crime has been consistently attributed to the petitioner in both the versions. He played a material role, according to the evidence as it stands today. The recovery of an unlicensed gun has been attributed him. At this stage, therefore, the petitioner could reasonably be denied the benefit of bail and in ordering so the High Court has not committed an such error of law as may require interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. S. Q. Leave refused.