1995 PLP 1266 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD KHALID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1266 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ahmad Saeed Awan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHALID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1266 (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 1995 PLP 1266 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ahmad Saeed Awan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1266 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD KHALID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hakeem Sahota for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/149/148‑‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑‑Prosecution witnesses who had allegedly seen the deceased in the company of accused had personally appeared in Sessions Court and filed an affidavit to the effect that they had nevei got recorded their statements before the police‑‑ Extra‑judicial confession was a very weak type of evidence‑‑‑Sessions Court had granted bail to accused by means of a well reasoned order which did not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity‑‑‑Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed accordingly. Naveed Rasool Mirza for the Complainant. Muhammad Anwar Dholan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Naveed Rasool Mirza for the Complainant. Muhammad Anwar Dholan for the State. Muhammad Khalid petitioner has challenged the bail granting order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin in a case F.I.R. No.327 of 1993, dated 18‑10‑1993 under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. with Police Station Saddar Mandi Bahauddin.
2. The allegations against the petitioner and his co‑accused is that in furtherance of their common object they committed the murder of Farooq Shahid deceased in order to deprive him of a sum of Rs.60,000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that although there is no direct evidence available on the record but the case of the complainant hinges strong evidence of extra‑judicial confession, last seen evidence, recovery and the medical evidence and as such the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in law while granting bail to the petitioner in a murder case.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and tried to justify the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. Jamil Ahmad and Iqbal who according to the prosecution allegedly saw the deceased in the company of the petitioner alongwith motor‑cycle appeared personally before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and filed an affidavit to the effect that they never got recorded their statements before the police. With regard to the evidentiary value of extra‑judicial confession it has rightly been held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that it is a very weak type of evidence. The order of granting bail passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is well reasoned and the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any material irregularity and illegality justifying interference by this Court. Resultantly, this petition stands dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑2046/L Petition dismissed.