1983 P Cr (PLP)
ZAHID ALI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ZAHID ALI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 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 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (ZAHID ALI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Khuda Dad Khan Barki for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 497 (I)‑Petitioner aged 141 years at time‑ of occurrence‑Held, case falls within first proviso to S. 497‑Bail granted in circum stances of case‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34.‑[Age]. Malik Muhammad Yousaf Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application on behalf of Zahid Ali in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Gojra vide F.I.R. No. 192, dated 29th May, 1981. The allegations against the petitioner are that he alongwith Khalid Hussain in furtherance of common intention caused death of Muhammad Amin deceased by inflicting one knife blow on his chest. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record School Leaving Certificate wherein date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 2nd October, 1966. Learned counsel for the State submits that he is not in a position to challenge this date of birth of the petitioner. From the perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 27th July, 1981, it appears that the contention of the petitioner that he was 141 years was not challenged by the A. P. P. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application and submits that although the petitioner is below 16 years in age, yet he cannot be allowed bail as a matter of right for the reason that main role has been attributed to him.
2. After bearing the learned counsel for parties and without entering into the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that, be as it may, the, fact remains that the petitioner was of 141 years in age at the time of the alleged occurrence and his case falls within the first proviso of section 497: Cr. P. C. The petition is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad. M.A.X. Bail granted.