1985 P Cr (PLP)
NAZIR AHMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafique Tarar, J |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 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 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafique Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (NAZIR AHMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Yar Khan Dah for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.452, 302 & 307/34‑‑Bail‑‑Accused causing simple injuries to complainant and no injury to deceased attributed to them‑‑Bail granted. Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State. Ch. Inayat Ullah Khan for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Yar Khan Dah for Petitioners. Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State. Ch. Inayat Ullah Khan for the Complainant. Nazir Ahmad and Niamat petitioner have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them and another under sections 452, 302 and 307/34, P.P.C. The allegations are that on 18th December, 1981, at 4 p.m. co‑accused Amanat Ali armed with a Rambi, Nazir petitioner also with a Rambi and Niamat petitioner with Sota trespassed into the house of Faqir Muhammad complainant. Co‑accused Amanat gave a Rambi blow to Bashir Ahmad deceased as a result of which he later on died. The petitioners are alleged to have given Rambi and Sota blows to Faqir Muhammad complainant. A dispute over the common wall is stated to be the motive for the offence. It is further alleged that shortly before the occurrence the complainant and the deceased had gone on the roof of their house to which the womenfolk of the accused party seriously objected and hurled abuses on them.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no injury to the deceased has been attributed to the petitioners and the only allegation against them is that they caused simple injuries to the complainant, therefore, their case needs further enquiry. The learned counsel for the complainant and the State, on the other hand, contend that she petitioners are named in the F.I.R. with a specific role, therefore, no ground for bail is made out.
3. I have gone through the relevant material. The petitioners are alleged to have caused injuries to Faqir Muhammad complainant and no injury to the deceased has been attributed to them. The injuries on the person of Faqir Muhammad were simple in nature. In the circumstances, I feel that a case for the enlargement of the petitioners is made out. Consequently, I admit them to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh. M.Y.H. Bail granted.