1979 P Cr (PLP)
SARDAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1979 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | S. Usman Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | SARDAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 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 1979 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: S. Usman Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 P Cr (PLP) (SARDAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hidayatullah Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 31st October,. 1978.
Headnotes / Summary
‑ S. 497 ‑ Bail of petitioner accused of murder pressed on ground: co‑accused acquitted by trial Court and evidence exonerat ing petitioner of charge‑Trial of petitioner, however, being held independently and ground raised not permissible in law‑Petitioner after occurrence remain in outlaw for about eight years‑Bail declined in circumstances. M. Sardar Khan, A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑ S. 497 ‑ Bail of petitioner accused of murder pressed on ground: co‑accused acquitted by trial Court and evidence exonerat ing petitioner of charge‑Trial of petitioner, however, being held independently and ground raised not permissible in law‑Petitioner after occurrence remain in outlaw for about eight years‑Bail declined in circumstances. Hidayatullah Khan for Petitioner. M. Sardar Khan, A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing : 31st October,. 1978. The accused/petitioner is charged under section 302/148/149, P. P. C. His application to secure bail has failed before the learned Judge and hence this application. The only and one ground urged by the learned counsel in support of this application is that the co‑accused, namely, Sabaz Ali and Muhammad Sharif, of the accused/petitioner in this case have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge and since the same evidence has been disbelieved in the case of acquitted accused, it according to the learned counsel also exonerates the accused/petitioner from the charge of murder. This contention has already been considered by the learned Sessions Judge and he repelled it. The trial of the accused/petitioner will be held independently of the previous trial in which the co‑accused of the petitioner were acquitted. If, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel is accepted, it will mean that the witnesses in the case will be examined as a matter of formality or for that matter there would be no need to examine them, as the same evidence given by them in the trial of the acquitted accused can be taken into consideration which is not permissible in law. The accused/petitioner remained outlaw after the occurrence for about eight years and thus in the circumstances of the case he is not entitled to bail. This bail application is, therefore, rejected. It is directed, however, that the trial of the accused/petitioner be held as expeditiously as possible. Bail rejected.