1987 P Cr (PLP)
AMIR HASSAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | AMIR HASSAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 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 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (AMIR HASSAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S: 302‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Complainant, a brother of accused's wife, expressing his apprehensions that accused might have murdered his wife because she was not present in his house nor could the accused satisfactorily explain her absence‑ Prosecution case mainly resting on the evidence of extra‑judicial confession, recovery of a licensed gun of accused, recovery of sixty‑two bones and some other articles from a deserted well on pointing of accused‑‑‑Witnesses of extra‑judicial confession having sworn affidavits thereby disowning their police statements, remaining evidence was not sufficient to connect accused with offence of murder‑‑Accused allowed bail, in circumstances. Sh. Muhammad Nawaz for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Amir Hassan petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under section 364,.P.P.C. Section 302, P.P.C. was subsequently added.
2. The case was registered on 6‑1‑1987 on report of Muhammad Latif complainant wherein he stated that his sister Mst. Sakina Bibi was married with Amir Hassan petitioner 8/9 years back. About 4 years back he visited the house of the petitioner but Mst. Sakina Bibi was not found there. He inquired about her from the petitioner but he could not give a satisfactory reply and tried to put him off saying that she had gone to attend some marriage. In the report he expressed apprehension that Mst. Sakina Bibi might have been murdered by the petitioner.
3. There is no direct evidence of murder and the prosecution rests on evidence relating to extra‑judicial confession furnished by Mushtaq and Altaf P.Ws, recovery of licensed gun of the petitioner, recovery of sixty two bones and other articles from a deserted well on the pointation of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Mushtaq and Altaf P.Ws, appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and disowned the statements allegedly made by them during the investigation and in that view of the matter the material collected by the investigating agency does not connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material available on the record. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that Mushtaq and Altaf, witnesses of extra‑judicial confession, appeared before him with affidavits disowning their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. The remaining evidence is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the offences with which he has been charged. In the circumstances, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Okara. S.G.D./A‑70/L Bail allowed.