2000 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zafar Abbas Mashadi Syed for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 1st July, 1999.;
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑ Many persons examined by the Investigating Officer, no doubt, had stated that the deceased was having illegal connection with the sister of accused, but it was not sufficient to belie the direct allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and it was for the Trial Court to see whether circumstances existed justifying the killing of the deceased‑‑‑Prosecution witnesses by direct and clear allegations had supported the prosecution version made in the F.I.R.‑‑‑Bail granted to accused by Sessions Court on illegal reasons was cancelled in circumstances. M. Amin Ullah for the State
Judgment & Decree
The allegations against respondent No.1 in case F.I.R. No.88 of 1998, dated 22‑3‑1998, registered at Police Station Motra, under section 302/34, P.P.C. is that while armed with .12 bore gun, he fired at Muhammad Ashraf, which fire hit him on his head and as a result of which he died at. the spot. Learned Sessions Judge allowed him bail on 12‑4‑1999 on the ground that during the investigation it transpires that the deceased was having illicit relations with Mst. Aasia, sister of accused and that the deceased was killed in the house of the accused indicating that he was on an illegal visit.
2. In this cancellation petition it is pleaded by learned counsel for the complainant that the allegations against the respondents are clear and direct and that he is attributed the only fire blow, which proved fatal. He submits that the learned lower Court could not have entered upon the appraisal of defence plea at the bail stage. Learned counsel for respondent No. l of course supported the impugned order and has relied on section 100 and section 103, P.P.C. to argue that the right to kill the deceased was available in this case. He also pleaded that where two versions are possible it is a case of further enquiry.
3. Learned counsel has supported the cancellation by arguing that after investigation the accused has been challaned.
4. The perusal of the police file particularly Zimni, dated 8‑4‑1.998, does show that number of persons examined by the Investigating Officer stated that the deceased was having illegal connection with Mst. Aasia. However, the Investigating Officer did conclude that it is the respondent accused, who killed the deceased, may be under provocation. This is not sufficient to belie the direct allegations levelled in the F.I.R. The trial Court will see whether circumstances existed, which justified the killing of the deceased. On the present material, such conclusion is risky. Prosecution witnesses have supported the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. It is repeated that these are direct and clear allegations.
5. In my opinion the reasons adopted by learned Sessions Judge for grant of bail are illegal. Resultantly, I accept this application and cancel the bail granted to respondent No.1. f further direct that he be taken in custody to stand his trial. N.H.Q./M‑1282/L Bail cancelled.