1988 PLP 1145 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1145 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1145 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1145 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1145 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Muhammad Aslam Choudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th April, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 20th March, 1988, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.639/B of 1988). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.497‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Bail‑‑Exercise of discretion‑‑ Interference with‑‑Petitioner accused under Ss.302/379/ 34, P. P. C. was attributed fire‑arm simple injury and his bail application was rejected by High Court‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with order where discretion had been exercised by High Court in accordance with law‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Nawaz petitioner against order of Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby his application for the grant of bail was dismissed. A case is registered against the petitioner alongwith others under sections 302/34, P.P.C. and 379/302, P.P.C. read with section 14/6/79 of the Hudood Ordinance. He was armed with a pistol and alongwith his co‑accused he had ambushed and they all were waiting for‑ the victims of the attack. When the victims passed by on motorcycle the petitioner and his co‑accused confronted them and launched an attack. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not caused any injury to the deceased and that the fire‑arm injury which is attributed to him and which was allegedly caused to the complainant was declared simple in nature. After hearing learned counsel we are of the view that no interference is called for in the order of the High Court in which discretion has been exercised by learned Judge in accordance with law. The result is that this petition is dismissed. M.I./M‑424/S Petition dismissed.